SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Ram Sundar Pal - Petitioner 
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 7119 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ram Krishna Yadav
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

The suppression of a pending criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character must be considered in recruitment decisions.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 - Order cancelling candidature of petitioner for Police Constable based on pending criminal case - The Superintendent of Police failed to consider the acquittal of the petitioner and the nature of the alleged offences, leading to a mechanical rejection of candidature without proper application of mind. (Paras 1, 43, 46)

(B) Employment Law - Recruitment and Verification - The principles laid down in Avtar Singh v. Union of India dictate that suppression of information regarding criminal cases must be assessed in light of the nature of the offence and the candidate's overall character. (Paras 17, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected for the post of Police Constable but faced cancellation of candidature due to a criminal case. He was acquitted but the Superintendent of Police failed to consider this in the decision-making process. (Paras 2, 6, 46)

Findings of Court:
The order by the Superintendent of Police was quashed, and the case was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with legal principles, particularly focusing on the nature of the offences and the petitioner’s character. (Paras 46)

Issues: The court addressed whether the Superintendent of Police appropriately considered the acquittal and the trivial nature of the alleged offences in relation to the petitioner’s suitability for employment. (Paras 43, 46)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere suppression of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify a candidate; rather, the nature of the case and the candidate's character must be evaluated comprehensively. (Paras 17, 38, 46)

Result: The impugned order dated 19.03.2023 was quashed, mandating a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s suitability for appointment. (Paras 46)

Table of Content
1. petitioner's background and selection process for police constable. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. previous writ petitions and orders regarding the petitioner's appointment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. pending criminal cases and their implications on employment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's procedural considerations and timeline of hearings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. analysis of the petitioner's affidavit and knowledge of pending cases. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. legal principles regarding suppression of information in employment applications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. court's evaluation of the nature of the alleged crimes. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. inquiry into the legitimacy of the goondas act case against the petitioner. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
9. government orders on character verification and their implications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
10. judicial precedents on handling cases of suppressed criminal history. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
11. court's final observations on the superintendent of police's decision-making. (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
12. final judgment and orders regarding the petitioner's appointment. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT :

(J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Superintendent of Police, Hathras dated 19.03.2023, cancelling his candidature for appointment as a Police Constable, a post for which he was selected after a recruitment held in accordance with rules, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.

2. The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, published an advertisement for recruitment of Police and PAC Constables on their website, called PRPB-1 (82)/15. The petitioner applied for the post of Police and PAC Constable (Male) in the direct recruitment of the year 2015, for which, he says, he was eligible. It would be utterly unnecessary to mention details of the petitioner’s candidature for those are not in dispute or issue. The petitioner was selected and his name appeared in the merit list. He was issued a provisional admit card to appear in the physical efficiency test, scheduled to be held on 05.05.2016. He appeared in the physical efficiency test and declared successful. The petitioner was then called for character verification, medical examination and the verification of his Classes X and XII mark-sheets. He was directed to appear for the purpose on 14.06.2018 at the Police Lines, Etawah in the morning hours at 8 O’ clock. The petitioner’s candidature was accepted during the said verification and medical test. The selection being complete, the petitioner, along with other selected candidates, was allotted his district of posting. The petitioner was allotted District Hathras for his posting. Despite being allotted a district, the petitioner was not issued with an appointment letter. When the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, he was informed that his appointment had been withheld due to a criminal case pending against him, to wit, Case Crime No.564 of 2015, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC/ST Act’), Police Station Jaswant Nagar, District Etawah.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that not only was he falsely implicated in the crime, but it was not within his knowledge that the case was pending against him. He was never arrested or summoned by the Police in connection with the crime, that was based on an incident dated 17.12.2015. The petitioner was served with a notice by the Police to appear in Court for the first time on 16.03.2016. This notice was issued by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Etawah and required his presence on 17.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m. at the time of submission of the charge-sheet. The petitioner was tried vide Sessions Trial No.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top