IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that pending criminal cases should not automatically disqualify candidates; a contextual evaluation of the offenses is essential.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Petitioner has been applicant for the post of Constable in Civil Police/Police Armed Constabulary pursuant to the advertisement issued and the recruitment examination held in 2015. While recruitment process was being undertaken and the examination was held, the entire selection and recruitment became subject-matter of litigation before this Court. Ultimately, with the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents proceeded with further medical examination test. Petitioner was also medically examined and successfully made it to the merit list. However, when he submitted his affidavit of undertaking and disclosed therein two criminal cases pending against him, one relating to Sections 341/332/353 Indian Penal Code and 2/3 Gangsters Act and the other relating to Sections 147/148/149/504/506 IPC, the disclosure became instrumental in denial of appointment to the petitioner. Consequently, he approached this Court first time vide Writ-A No. 15583 of 2018 which was disposed of with the direction that his claim should be considered in light of the judgment of Avatar Singh v. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471. Ultimately, the candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled on the sole ground that two criminal cases were pending against him, vide order dated 26.3.2021. This order too came to be challenged before this Court vide Writ-A No. 4098 of 2020 on the ground that the ratio of judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) was not understood in its correct perspective by the authorities and that the cases being trivial in nature, petitioner if had been offered the appointment on the post of Constable it would not have adversely affected the discharge of his duties as such. The Court found that the dictum in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) was not accorded due consideration and accordingly, set aside the order and remitted the matter to be decided afresh. It is in compliance of this order dated 15.7.2021 that the impugned order has now come to be passed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the guidelines that have been prescribed for in the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) are indicative of an important legal aspect that just because a criminal case has been registered against a candidate, his candidature ought not to have been cancelled outrightly but there should be due objective consideration to be accorded to such cases, the nature of criminal case, the circumstances in which a person has got implicated and may be history of criminal cases.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chand v. State of UP and others decided on 24.3.2023 in Special Appeal No. 67 of 2023.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon a latest judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Chetan Jeff; AIR 2022 (SC) 2274. He has placed reliance upon paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment and submits that after taking into consideration various previous judgments of the Supreme Court including that of Avtar Singh (supra) case, the Apex Court has come to conclude that it is within the discretion of the employer to offer appointment to a person or not if he has criminal antecedents to his credit.

5. Before I proceed to examine the order impugned, learned counsel, at the very outset, informed the Court that in so far as the criminal case in connection with the Case Crime No. 345 of 2016 under Sections 147/332/341/353 IPC is concerned, he has been acquitted in that case vide judgment and order of the trial Court dated 9.6.2022 in Criminal Case No. 470 of 2017. Thus, now there remains only one criminal case pending today.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record and having examined the order impugned in the writ petition, I find that petitioner's candidature has been rejected only on the ground of pendency of two