1. Writ petition challenging cancellation of candidature for constable post due to criminal case, seeking appointment based on merit. (Para 1 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8998 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Tanveer Ahamad, Mohsin Khan
For the Respondent: Soumitra Chaturvedi
For the Appellants : Tanveer Ahamad, Mohsin Khan
For the Respondent: Soumitra Chaturvedi
Candidature for public appointment cannot be rejected solely due to a criminal case if the offenses fall within the exceptions of administrative character verification circulars and the candidate has been acquitted.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Character Verification - Impact of criminal prosecution on appointment to public post - Where a candidate is acquitted of charges under sections of the penal code that fall within exceptions prescribed in administrative circulars for character verification, the candidature should be reconsidered in light of established judicial precedents, even if the acquittal was not honorable. (Paras 9, 11)
Facts of the case:
A candidate for the post of constable, having qualified the written examination and physical tests, had his candidature cancelled due to an FIR registered under Sections 143, 323, 327, and 149 of the IPC. Although the candidate was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt and a compromise filed by the victims, the respondent rejected the candidature based on administrative circulars concerning character verification at the time of appointment.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the offenses for which the petitioner was charged, specifically under Sections 143 and 149 of the IPC, fall within the exceptions provided in the character verification circulars issued by the concerned administrative authorities.
Issues: Whether the rejection of a candidate's appointment on the grounds of a criminal case is valid when the offenses are covered by exceptions in administrative circulars and the candidate has been acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: When a candidate's criminal record involves offenses that are listed as exceptions under the governing administrative circulars for character verification, the appointing authority is obligated to re-examine and reconsider the candidacy in accordance with settled legal ratios, ensuring the decision is communicated via a reasoned and speaking order.
Result: Order cancelling the candidature quashed; respondent directed to re-examine and reconsider the case of the petitioner.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner cited precedent; respondents opposed, relying on circulars for rejection based on criminal case and lack of honorable acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court noted petitioner's acquittal with benefit of doubt, no continuing criminal case, and applicability of circular exceptions and precedent. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Candidature rejection on criminal grounds requires assessment under issued circulars, considering acquittal and offence exceptions, per precedent. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Quashed impugned order, directed reconsideration of candidature with notional benefits if precedent applies, else reasoned order; petition disposed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Can a candidate's candidature be cancelled solely because of a criminal case if the offence falls within exceptions under circulars?
No, the court held that since the maximum offence against the petitioner was under Sections 143 and 149 IPC, which falls within exceptions per circulars, rejection is not sustainable and reconsideration is required. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is an acquittal with benefit of doubt considered a valid ground for denying appointment to a constable post?
The court did not uphold denial based on lack of honorable acquittal alone; it directed reconsideration in light of applicable judgments and circulars, indicating acquittal with benefit of doubt may not be an automatic disqualifier. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
ORDER :
1. Instant Writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following prayer:-
1. That impugned order dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure-7) by which the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.
2. That the respondents may be directed that the petitioner may be considered eligible for appointment to the post of Constable Recruitment as per his merit and the order dated 11.03.2019 may be directed to not come in the way of petitioner for appointment.
3. That the action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner from appointment to the post of constable on grounds of criminal case may kindly be held illegal and arbitrary and he may be given appointment on the post of constable as per his merit with all consequential benefits. 4. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the controversy raised herein is no more res integra as same has been decided by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Babbal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 971/2022), and further followed by another Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Jaipal Chalka Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 610/2022), order dated 09.10.2025. He further submits that this matter be disposed of in accordance with ratio laid down by Hon’ble Division Bench in case of Babbal Singh (supra) and Jaipal Chalka (supra).
3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) and he submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondent on the basis of the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the DGP, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected and now he is not entitled to be reconsidered.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. The petitioner has filed an application pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989. The petitioner was duly qualified after the written examination and Physical Standard Test/Physical Efficiency Test in the OBC Male Category. The petitioner has also submitted that an FIR was registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar on 25.11.2014 wherein a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and others.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed on the post of Constable as FIR No. 463/2014 under Sections 143, 323 and 327 IPC was registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (South) on 25.11.2014 wherein a charge sheet has been filed against seven persons including the present petitioner under Sections 143, 323, 327 and 149 IPC.
7. The material on record as examined by the respondents indicate that the petitioner was acquitted on 22.06.2015 after extending benefit of doubt to him. The material on record also indicate that a compromise has been filed by the victims. The Department has relied on circular dated 15.07.2016 issued by DOP for character verification at the time of appointment. This circular has also laid down certain grounds whereby the appointment of a candidate can be denied in case of a criminal case against the candidate. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the circular dated 28.03.2017 issued by the DGP, Rajasthan.
8. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Babbal Singh versus State of Rajasthan (supra) and further followed in the case of Jaipal Chalka vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 15.01.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6447/2019, Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others , which was approved by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan vs. Pawan Kumar , D.B. SAW No. 678/2020 decided on 06.01.2021.
