Employment opportunities scarce nowadays: Calcutta High Court

Employment opportunities are limited nowadays due to limited number of vacancies, the Calcutta High Court recently observed while ordering reinstatement of a constable of the Railway Protection Force (RPF) [Sri Sukdeb Mandal vs Union of India]. .Single-judge Justice Aniruddha Roy, however, clarified that scarcity in employment opportunities cannot be the sole reason to grant relief to candidates on the ground of sympathy. "Employment opportunity is a scarce commodity nowadays being circumscribed within limited vacancies. It is true that this may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credential of a candidate raises any question regarding its suitability, irrespective of eligibility," the Court observed in its order passed on September 6..But the Court added that there could not be any mechanically or rhetorical incantation of morale turpitude, to deny appointment in a government service simplicitor which would depend on the facts of a case."Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve itself, learn from the past and move ahead in life for self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will depend on the fact situation of a case," the judge said while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, whose services were terminated by the RPF in 2015..As per the petitioner, he was selected for the post of a constable after clearing all the mandatory tests in June 2015. However, within a month, the authorities learnt that a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and thus, terminated his services from July 2015. He had been booked under Sections 34 (common intention), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was chargesheeted in May 2011 and was acquitted in January 2015.The authorities while terminating his services stated that the petitioner deliberately misrepresented facts, which reflects upon his moral turpitude. He should have disclosed the details when was being recruited in the highly disciplined force.The petitioner told the High Court that he was discharged from the case, which was a trivial one, after the complainant, who happened to be his neighbour, withdrew the complaint..The bench noted that of all the four charges invoked against the petitioner, most were non-cognizable and even bailable. It, thus, concluded that the charges were of trivial nature without having any effect on the moral turpitude of the petitioner."Upon assessment of the nature of charges leveled against the petitioner, it appeared to this Court that they were trivial in nature and without any effect on his moral turpitude. The offense alleged to have been committed were petty in nature at a young age and not a serious or heinous one. The nature of the charges being petty and trivial and after withdrawal of the same by the complainant, the moral turpitude of the petitioner could not be questioned in the facts of this case," the bench said..This fact should have been considered by the employer when using its discretion to dismiss the petitioner from his employment, the Court opinedIt, therefore, ordered the authorities to reinstate the petitioner.It has further clarified that the petitioner would be entitled for the arrears of salary and or the monetary benefit for the period during which he had not served the force due to his dismissal and he shall be entitled for all benefits, including pay, seniority etc..Advocate Achin Kumar Majumder appeared for the Petitioner. Advocate Sourav Mondal represented the Union of India. .[Read Judgment]