Applicants for police recruitment have a duty to disclose any involvement in criminal cases or proceedings in their application forms. Concealment of such information can be considered a deliberate attempt to mislead the authorities and may result in disqualification.

Headnote:
POLICE RECRUITMENT - CONCEALMENT OF CRIMINAL CASE - APPOINTMENT - ELIGIBILITY - APPLICANT'S DUTY TO DISCLOSE INVOLVEMENT IN CRIMINAL CASES - VERIFICATION OF ANTECEDENTS - RELEVANCE OF ACQUITTAL OR DISCHARGE - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS.
Fact of the Case:

Multiple writ petitions involving identical legal questions related to the concealment of criminal involvement in applications for the post of Constable in the Rajasthan Police. Petitioners had been denied appointments due to their failure to disclose pending criminal cases or involvement in criminal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that applicants are duty-bound to provide accurate information in their application forms, including details of any criminal cases or involvement. Concealment of such information amounts to an incomplete form and can lead to disqualification. However, the court also recognized that mere pendency of a criminal case should not automatically disqualify an applicant from appearing in examinations or tests. If a candidate is ultimately acquitted or discharged, they may have a right to be appointed if selected, subject to other eligibility criteria and character verification.
Issues: 1. Whether the concealment of involvement in criminal cases in application forms for police recruitment constitutes a valid ground for disqualification. 2. The relevance of acquittal or discharge in criminal cases in determining an applicant's suitability for appointment as a Constable. 3. Interpretation of relevant rules and judicial precedents governing police recruitment and the duty of applicants to disclose criminal involvement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Applicants for police recruitment have a duty to disclose any involvement in criminal cases or proceedings in their application forms. Concealment of such information can be considered a deliberate attempt to mislead the authorities and may result in disqualification. 2. The mere pendency of a criminal case should not automatically disqualify an applicant from appearing in examinations or tests. However, if an applicant is ultimately acquitted or discharged, their selection may still be subject to verification of antecedents and character. 3. The court interpreted relevant rules and judicial precedents to emphasize the importance of honesty and transparency in police recruitment. It recognized that while acquittal or discharge in criminal cases may not necessarily disqualify an applicant, the appointing authority has the discretion to consider the candidate's conduct and character in making a final decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition filed by Sita Ram Baloda (S.B.C.W. No. 81/98) and Laxman Singh (S.B.C.W. No. 3795/98), as they had not concealed any material facts in their applications. The court directed the respondents to offer appointments to these petitioners if they were on the select list and met the merit criteria. The court dismissed all other writ petitions, holding that the concealment of criminal involvement in application forms was a valid ground for disqualification.

JUDGMENT

1. - All the above writ petitions involve identical questions of law relating to the concealment of fact while applying for the post in regard to their involvement in the criminal proceedings in various courts and, therefore, are being decided together.

1. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO. 6977/97 Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2. The petitioner had appeared for selection to the post of Constable, but has been refused appointment on the ground that a criminal case was pending in the court for the offences 323 and 324 I.P.C. It is stated that-the parties had already compromised in the criminal case on 7.12.1994 and he had been acquitted as per copy of the judgment Annexure-4 and prays that in case he has been selected and is on merit list, he should be offered the appointment. The case falls under the jurisdiction of S.P. Baran.

3. It is stated in the written statement that the petitioner had suppressed the information in column No. 17 of the application form, copy of the application has also been attached as Annexure R/1 to the written statement. The column states (1) whether the applicant has been ever connected with any criminal case and if yes, the details of the criminal case and also (2) whether the applicant has been convicted or arrested. It is stated that the petitioner had deliberately put cross 'X' mark against this column and on investigation/ verification, it was found that the petitioner was involved in case No. 113/92 of Police Station Sarola and thus the petitioner had not been given the appointment for the reason that the case was pending against him in the case (sic court ?) of CJM Khanpur and that he had deliberately supressed the material facts.

2. Facts of S.B.C.W.NO.1805/98 Veer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

4. The case relates to the Dholpur District. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.9.1997 for the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police, 99 posts were advertised to be filled-up. The petitioner was one of the applicant. He was issued admission card for written examination under Rule 1129 on 30.11.1997. It is stated that he was declared successful out of the category of Scheduled Tribe candidates, as per order dated 20.12.1997. He appeared in out-door examination and is said to have been declared successful being at Sr.No.4. It is stated that the junior persons to the petitioner have been selected and offered appointment, but the petitioner has been ignored. He had come to know that as per police verification, report was sought from the SHO whereby it was reported that he was involved in a case u/s.323 and 341 Indian Penal Code pending in criminal court and challen had been filed. It is stated that he had already been acquitted in the case due to compromise between the parties on 18.1.1997. He made representations, but no reply has been received. The petitioner is aggrieved and prays that he be offered the appointment on the post of Constable.

5. Reply has been filed by the respondents. It is stated that in the application form against Column No. 17, the petitioner was duty bound to fill-up the information correctly. Column related to the fact whether the petitioner was involved in any criminal case and if so details were to be given. The petitioner had deliberately concealed the fact by saying that he was not involved in any criminal case and had answered as 'NIL' in Column No. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected subject to verification of antecedents made by the local police and for the reason that he was involved in the criminal case No. 25/98 and later on exonerated due to compromise between the parties and thus he was rightly denied the appointment. The State relies on a case decided by this court in the case of Shesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2490/97 decided on 10.12.1997) [reported in 1997(1) RLR 263] and Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary & Others Vs. Sushil Kumar (1997 U.J.(SC) 159) . It was a case unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis