Back
Setting aside the rejection of a police constable candidate over a , the has held that instructions issued by the in 2025 cannot override the , which continues to govern the issue of character certificates on . A single bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam also faulted the appointing authority for accepting an adverse report without independently examining whether the nature of the charge made Ravi Kumar Gupta unfit for the .
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Gupta, a candidate in the U.P. Police Constable Civil Police Direct Recruitment, 2023. He had cleared the written examination, appeared in document verification and physical standard tests, and was placed at serial number 90 in the select list. After passing his medical examination on , he was allotted District Prayagraj for the Joint Training Course, but the at refused to allow him to join. The rejection was formalised by the , in an order dated .
A disclosure made, a joining refused
At the stage of medical examination and , Gupta submitted an affidavit disclosing the pendency of a single criminal case against him: Case Crime No. 100 of 2022, Police Station Dubhar, District Ballia, registered under . A charge sheet had been filed against him on and the matter was pending before the court.
His earlier writ petition, Writ A No. 15608 of 2025, was disposed of on with a direction to file a comprehensive representation before the . In compliance, the Deputy Commissioner of Police rejected his claim, relying on a letter dated issued by the and the .
In the counter affidavit, the State said the , Dubhar, reported the pendency of the case on . The , Ballia then sought the opinion of the , who did not recommend on and again declined on . The , Ballia, had also opined that Gupta was involved in a case of .
The petitioner’s counsel argued that mere pendency of a criminal case cannot defeat appointment without a finding that the nature of the offence makes the candidate unsuitable. He emphasised that there was no concealment and pointed out that the itself provides that even a conviction need not automatically involve refusal of a good . The Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the police force requires persons of immaculate character and that a conscious decision had been taken after considering the case.
The legal contest over
The court examined Rule 16 of the Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, amended in 2017, which requires to be completed under the supervision of the appointing authority before issuing an appointment letter and before sending a candidate for training. The rule says that if an adverse fact comes to light, the candidate shall be declared unfit, but the court noted that it “provides no criteria or procedure” to determine when such a declaration is justified.
The supplies the modalities of . Its Note (a) states that the circumstances of a conviction should be taken into account and that a mere conviction need not be regarded as a . The court rejected the State’s attempt to give to the DGP’s 2025 instructions, observing:
“The reliance placed by respondent authorities on the instructions issued by dated will not override the provisions of , which still hold field in the matter of issuance of in case of first employment of the government employee.”
The judgment drew on the ’s decision in , which holds that where a candidate has truthfully declared the pendency of a criminal case of , the employer may, in its discretion, appoint the candidate subject to the outcome of that case. The court distinguished the cases cited by the State, including those dealing with suppression of facts, , and post-appointment , noting that Gupta had made an honest disclosure.
Court finds
Examining the impugned order, the court found that the Deputy Commissioner of Police had simply adopted the recommendations of the and the . The order contained no independent finding on whether a trivial, pending case, truthfully disclosed, should stand in the way of appointment.
“Respondent No. 3 has merely accepted the recommendation of , Ballia and , Ballia and has not independently recorded any finding on the candidature of the petitioner that whether mere pendency of criminal case of , as disclosed by the petitioner, it would not be proper to appoint the petitioner as per the ,” the court observed.
It added: “The appointing authority has to make an after considering the reports submitted before them.”
The court also took into account the contents of the First Information Report. The allegations against Gupta were general in nature and no specific role was assigned to him. According to the FIR, Gupta’s brother was injured by the cattle of the first informant, and the accused family members came to complain about the incident, leading to an altercation. The petitioner’s entire family was booked in the case.
The court noted that respondent No. 3 had not given any consideration to the nature of the charge or to the fact that, although the FIR was lodged on , the trial had still not concluded after more than four years. It observed that the petitioner could not be denied appointment on the basis of a , especially when the impugned order had been passed without application of mind.
Fresh decision within two months
Allowing the writ petition, the court set aside the order dated passed by respondent No. 3. It directed the to pass a fresh order after reconsidering the matter in light of the court’s observations and the judgments referred to in the judgment, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.
The ruling does not automatically restore Gupta’s appointment; it requires the appointing authority to re-evaluate his candidature independently, applying the 1958 Government Order rather than mechanically following the DGP’s 2025 instructions. The fresh decision must now be taken expeditiously, with the court having made clear that a of a pending case, without more, is not enough to sustain a refusal.
