Service law: Appointment – Antecedents and suitability of the candidate – Consideration of – On facts, the respondent participated in the selection process for posts of subedars, platoon commanders and inspectors of police – Disclosure made in an affidavit that a criminal case is pending against him – Within four days compromise entered into between the parties and application for compounding of the offences allowed – Thereafter, the respondent was selected in the written examination, however, after considering his character verification report, his candidature was rejected – Writ petition thereagainst allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Said order upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate – Employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition – On facts, nothing on record to suggest that the decision of rejecting the candidature of respondent was actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, as on the date when the respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition. [Para 15][1145-B-D]
1.2 There is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. The decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench are set aside. [Para 17][1145-G-H]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591; Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and
another (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Mohammed Imran v. State of
Maharashtra and others 2018 (10) JT 15 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.