ORDER

1. Assailing the order dated 28.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.10057 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he applied for the post of Police Constable and after facing the recruitment process, he was declared a successful candidate. He was allotted posting at Unit Narsinghpur. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents and also made a declaration about his acquittal in a criminal case and submitted an affidavit to the aforesaid effect. He appeared before the scrutiny committee. Therefore, vide order dated 20.10.2018, he was informed that he was found ineligible for appointment. The said order was questioned by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition being W.P. No.28492 of 2018 which was disposed off vide order dated 29.1.2019 directing respondent No.4 to decide fresh representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others passed in Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018. The petitioner was again asked to appear before the scrutiny committee and thereafter he was again declared ineligible vide order dated 4.4.2019.

3. It is his further case that the authorities have adopted different yardsticks and discriminated the case of the petitioner as the persons who were chargesheeted for serious offences have been granted appointment. It is his case that he was charge-sheeted for the offence under section 327 of the IPC in which he has been acquitted on merits and not on the basis of compromise. Thereafter, in all fairness, the authorities should have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. The writ Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the employer is having every right to look into the antecedents of a candidate and it is within his discretion to grant appointment or not, and in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the employer cannot be compelled to grant appointment.

4. It is argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases has considered the aforesaid proposition. Reliance is placed upon the judgments rendered in Mohd. Imran v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2019) 17 SCC 696, Pramod Singh Kirar v. State of M.P. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 423, Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2 and State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1070.

5. Per contra, State counsel has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is contended that the learned writ Court has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. In the earlier round of litigation, only direction is to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The authorities have reconsidered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 4.4.2019 finding him unfit for the post in question. It is within the domain of the employer to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate. It is contended that the petitioner has applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in the Police Department which is a disciplined force. The parameters for consideration are entirely different. Mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for grant of appointment, rather it is required to be examined whether he has been completely exonerated in the case or benefit of doubt has been extended to him. It is for the scrutiny committee to take a final decision in the matter and the decision of the scrutiny committee can only be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of mala fides. No such plea is taken by the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), wherein it is held that in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concl