Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW BENCH
AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Shekhar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 10936 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dinesh Pratap Singh, Armaan Surendra Tiwari

In recruitment to disciplined forces, administrative authorities possess the discretion to deny appointment to candidates facing serious pending criminal charges. Despite truthful disclosure of such cases, the employer is not compelled to appoint candidates whose criminal antecedents potentially threaten the integrity and discipline of the service.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment to disciplined force - Character verification - Appointment of candidate with pending criminal cases - Appointing authority is vested with the power and duty to satisfy itself regarding the suitability and impeccable character of a candidate - Pendency of cases involving serious offenses renders a candidate unfit for employment in a disciplined force, regardless of whether the candidate disclosed the facts truthfully. (Paras 10, 13, 20)

(B) Service Law - Duty of Appointing Authority - Employer is not compelled to appoint a candidate even if the candidate has made a truthful declaration of pending criminal cases - The authority retains the right to consider the nature of the offenses and the potential threat to the discipline and integrity of the service before deciding on suitability. (Paras 16, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a position in a uniformed service and was recommended by the recruitment board. During mandatory police verification, it was discovered that the candidate was involved in serious pending criminal cases. The appointing authority, upon receiving reports from district officials, canceled the candidate's selection on the grounds of unsuitability, prompting the candidate to file a writ petition challenging the cancellation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointing authority acted within its legal domain and followed due procedure in evaluating the candidate's character. The court emphasized that in a disciplined force, candidates must maintain a record of integrity, and those facing serious criminal charges are inherently unsuitable for such a position, maintaining that the court cannot compel an employer to accept a candidate with such antecedents.

Issues: Whether a candidate can be denied employment in a disciplined force due to the pendency of serious criminal cases despite making a truthful disclosure, and whether the appointing authority has the discretion to declare a candidate unsuitable based on these antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The character of a candidate for a post in a disciplined force must render them suitable in all respects. The employer serves as the final authority to judge this suitability based on verified antecedents. When serious criminal charges exist, the employer is entitled to reject the candidature to preserve the discipline and public confidence of the force, as simple disclosure does not override the requirement for impeccable character.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual context of petitioner's rejection for police service due to pending criminal cases. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contentions regarding disclosure of criminal cases and employer's verification rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. appointing authority's discretion to assess suitability for service based on criminal antecedents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 21)
4. candidates with serious criminal charges are unsuitable for police disciplined forces. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22)
5. dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of merit. (Para 23)

JUDGMENT :

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 10.07.2025, whereby the selection/candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (Civil Police) has been rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal cases registered as Case Crime No. 0018 of 2021, under Sections 392/411/34/201 I.P.C., Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh, registered on 13.01.2021 as well as Case Crime No. 0156 of 2021 under Sections 2 /3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

3. The brief facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner applied for selection to the post of Constable (Civil Police) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (hereinafter referred to as “Recruitment Board”). The petitioner, after undergoing the selection process, was selected and recommended by the Recruitment Board for appointment to the said post. However, during the course of police verification, it was found that Charge Sheet No.140 of 2021 had been filed under Sections 392/411/34/201 I.P.C. arising out of FIR lodged on 13.01.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 0018 of 2021 at Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had already disclosed the pendency of the aforesaid two criminal cases while filling up the application form and merely on account of such pendency, he cannot be denied appointment to the post of Constable (Civil Police), especially after having been selected and recommended by the Recruitment Board.

5. The Recruitment Board, in its counter affidavit, has stated that after completion of the selection process and forwarding of the recommendation, the role of the Board comes to an end and it is for the appointing authority to take a decision regarding appointment. It has further been stated that the selections were conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (as amended in 2017). Rule 16 of the said Rules provides for character verification and stipulates that before issuance of the appointment order, the appointing authority must obtain a verification report, and upon disclosure of any adverse material, the candidate may be declared unfit for appointment and the vacancy has to be carried forward to the next selection. It is further stated that the final result was declared on 13.03.2025 and the select list was forwarded to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, for further necessary action, whereafter the Recruitment Board ceased to have any role in the matter of appointment.

6. In the separate counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, it is stated that while filling up the application form, the petitioner had disclosed the pendency of two criminal cases, however, there was no reference to the nature of charges, which, upon police verification, were found to relate to serious offences. It is further stated that a letter dated 21.05.2025 was sent by the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, seeking opinion regarding the suitability/unsuitability of the petitioner in light of Government Order No. 4694/1