Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR - RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4960 to 4963 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) 13282, 18397, 18396, 13285 OF 2014)
Decided on : 25-08-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Constable in Delhi Police – Candidates involved in criminal offences – Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess suitability of a candidate for any public office or post – Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness to materials), or illegality by public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders courts' decision suspect to charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment – Public service, like any other, pre-supposes that State employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service – Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. – These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service – Judicial review, under Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner – However, suitability is entirely different; autonomy or choice of public employer, is greatest, as long as process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bon fides – Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour – Each case is to be scrutinized by concerned public employer, through its designated officials, more so, in case of recruitment for police force, who are under a duty to maintain order and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security – Common impugned judgment and orders of CAT, quashing orders issued by appellant, declining appointment to respondent candidates, set aside. (Paras 26, 29, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Appellant (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) is in appeal, aggrieved by a common judgment of the Delhi High Court by which respondents (candidates/applicants) were directed to be considered for appointment to post of Constable of Delhi Police. By impugned order, Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rejection of the candidatures of respondents.
Findings of Court:
High Court’s approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken seriously, given the age of the youth and rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender’s conduct, should not enter judicial verdict and should be avoided.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (“the appellant”) is in appeal, aggrieved by a common judgment of the Delhi High Court by which the respondents (hereafter referred to as “candidates/applicants”) were directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable of Delhi Police.
2. An advertisement was issued in the year 2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up vacancies in the cadre of constable in the Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that the respondent candidates, in their applications, disclosed that criminal cases had been instituted against them - as well as the outcome of those cases. Except in SLP(C) 18396/2014 where the applicant Deepa Tomar was facing trial, the criminal cases had ended in compromise. After due consideration of their candidature, and in terms of S.O. No.398/2010, the appellant referred their cases to a Standing Committee, to assess their suitability. In Deepa Tomar’s case, the consideration was deferred since she was facing trial in criminal proceedings where she was charged with committing the offence of kidnapping under Section 364 IPC. By various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the appellant before the High Court. They were dealt with and considered by the common impugned order, which rejected the appellant’s petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The main argument by the candidates was that having regard to the terms of the applicable Standing Order as well as the decisions of this Court, the rejection of their candidature was unsustainable because of non-application of mind and further the orders were made in a mechanical manner. By the impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rejection of the candidatures of the respondents.
4. It is urged by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment is erroneous inasmuch as the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that the Standing Orders could not be so read as compelling the authorities to select applicants whose conduct was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Screening Committee. The appellant relies upon the rulings of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr v Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 as well as the observations of the three-Judge Bench in the Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. UOI & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471.
5. The appellant urges that in all the four cases, the candidates faced criminal proceedings - in most of them, even charges were framed after which the cases against them ended in a compromise. In the case of Ms. Deepa Tomar, the candidate was not only accused but also charged for committing the offence of kidnapping. She stood trial but was acquitted on the ground of insufficient evidence. It was submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences that the candidates were alleged to have committed and the outcome of the cases, the authorities were justified in concluding that they were unsuitable for employment in the concerned post, i.e. as Constables of Police.
6. It was argued by Mr. Singhal appearing on behalf of two candidates, Shiv Singh [SLP(C) 13282/2014] and Prem Singh Choudhary [SLP(C) 18396/2014] that the Screening Committee dealt with their cases in a perfunctory manner and did not appreciate the entirety of facts. With respect to the respondent Shiv Singh, it was urged that though in the first information report (FIR), allegations could have led to grave offences, including charge under Section 353 IPC, as a matter of fact the charges framed were not in r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
