IMPORTANT POINT
Even after disclosure, employer can consider antecedents and suitability of the candidate vis-à-vis the job profile.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave granted. This appeal challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No.132 of 2015.

2. In 2012, the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh invited applications for filling up the posts of Subedars, Platoon Commanders and Inspectors of Police. Clause 1.13 of the advertisement dealt with character verification of the candidates. True translation of said clause 1.13 along with Note appended thereto was to the following effect:

“1.13 Appointment: The character verification shall be carried out about the selected candidates and the appointment only of the candidates found in the selection list upon finding them fit in character. The medical examination of the candidates also shall be conducted. The candidate to be medically fit for the entitlement of the appointment is also required.

Note: To save time and for the convenience, the verification form is sent earlier to the candidates declared fit to sit in the physical fitness examination, which the candidates have to submit after filling up and the character and earlier verification of all the candidates to appear in interview is made. The candidate who is not selected, his form will not used further. The candidates should fill up full and correct information in the character verification form. They should not provide any false information, incomplete information and semi true information. They should not conceal any information as well. Particularly it is required to fill up the correct information in column no.12. Now according to the new guidelines of Madhya Pradesh Government regarding character verification, to give the undertaking to this effect is required that he has not concealed any fact in the details given by him earlier about the criminal cases.”

3. The respondent participated in the selection process and as mandated, tendered an affidavit on 22.12.2012 disclosing following information:

“I affirm on oath that Case No.592/06 under Sections 323, 325, 506, 34 was registered in Police Station Madhav Nagar against me the deponent. I the deponent myself had come to the court. I was never arrested. The aforesaid case is pending in the Court. In addition no criminal record is registered in any police station anywhere in India, nor has the deponent convicted by the Court in any criminal case.”

4. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006 was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, it appears that within four days, a compromise was entered into between the original complainant and the respondent and an application for compounding the offences was filed under Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure. True translation of relevant portions of the proceedings dated 26.12.2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ujjain, M.P. is as under:

“The case was perused. This case is listed for the presence of the accused. The accused was taken in judicial custody. …….

The bond forfeiture amount on behalf of the accused was deposited in compliance with the order, vide receipt No.85. The receipt was given to the accused….

At this very stage, Rajiv Rawat submitted an application for compromise under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and expressed that a compromise has been made between him and the accused persons so the permission for compounding be granted. Copy of the application was given to ADPO. The remaining accused persons with Sashank Advocate are present. I heard the matter regarding compromise. The case was perused.

It is clear from perusal that the case being of offences under Sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-2, IPC is fit for compromise. The present complainant is a competent party for the compromise. Hence, the permission for compounding can be granted.

The parties submitted a deed of compromise, jointly signed having photographs. The parties were identified by their counsel. Both the parties have stated that t