The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order cancelling a man's compassionate appointment after authorities relied on an old conviction under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance. The court held that government employers cannot mechanically deny appointment merely because a candidate was once convicted, particularly when the offence does not involve moral turpitude or violence.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Virendra Singh, a resident of Sri Ganganagar, sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was serving in the Education Department. His candidature was approved in February 2025 for the post of Assistant Employee (Sahayak Karamchari).
However, when he reported for joining, the appointment was not finalized. During police verification, authorities found that an FIR had been registered against him in 2011 under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance. In that case, he had been subjected to a fine of ₹100 by a competent court.
Relying on this fact, the Director of Secondary Education cancelled the compassionate appointment in November 2025.
Aggrieved by the decision, Singh approached the High Court challenging the cancellation order.
The petitioner argued that cancellation of his appointment over a minor offence carrying a fine of only ₹100 was arbitrary and contrary to the State government's own policy.
His counsel contended that the Department of Personnel's circular dated December 4, 2019, envisages denial of appointment mainly in cases involving offences of moral turpitude or violence. It was further submitted that a previous Rajasthan High Court ruling, relying on Supreme Court precedent, had already held that a conviction under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance does not amount to moral turpitude.
The State opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner had admittedly been convicted and sentenced by a court. According to the respondents, the appointing authority had correctly treated him as ineligible after examining the police verification report and relevant records.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur examined the applicable service rules and the 2019 government circular.
The court observed that authorities are required to assess such cases carefully and cannot reject a candidate's appointment automatically merely because a conviction exists on record.
“The decision to deny appointment is not to be taken in a mechanical manner,” the bench observed, adding that unless the offence involves “moral turpitude or violence,” appointment may still be granted.
Referring to the earlier decision in Alok Garg v. State of Rajasthan and the Supreme Court judgment in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the court noted that imposition of a fine under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance has previously been held not to constitute moral turpitude.
“The denial of appointment to an otherwise eligible candidate on such a ground cannot be sustained in law,” the court said.
Allowing the writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the order dated November 28, 2025, by which the petitioner's compassionate appointment had been cancelled.
The court directed the authorities to permit Virendra Singh to join service on the post of Sahayak Karamchari forthwith.
It further ordered that he would be entitled to seniority, pay fixation and other consequential benefits on a notional basis from the date of the judgment.
Case Details
Case Title: Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1104/2026
Judge: Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Decision Date: May 4, 2026
