IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 7704 of 2008 RAJENDRA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri Aditya Singh Thakur appeared for petitioner.

Ms. Aishwarya Singh Dy. G.A. appeared for respondent.

ORDER This petition has been filed while praying for the following reliefs:

"i. Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ/order/Direction quashing the impugned order dated 7.9.2007 as contained in Annexure P-5, and the respondents be directed to immediately appoint the petitioner in the post of Constable in the Department of Police with effect from the order contained in Annexure P-1 with all the consequential benefits therein.

ii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the circumstances of the case may also be issued."

2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the petitioner moved an application for appointment as a Constable in the Department of Police. The petitioner was selected vide Annexure P/1 and was directed to appear in the office of respondents. At the time of seeking appointment, the petitioner has submitted a form in which the petitioner disclosed that in past, three criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, however, in all three cases, the petitioner stood acquitted. Yet despite the said disclosure, the petitioner's candidature was turned down vide impugned order dated 07/09/2007 (Annexure P/5) which is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Senior Counsel contends that it is a case where the present petitioner acting bonafidely and approaching the respondents with clean hands, himself disclosed the factum of registration of three criminal cases against him in past. The petitioner also disclosed in the form that he had already been acquitted in all three cases which were pertaining to pitty offences except offence under Section 458 of IPC. Therefore, there exists no fetter in giving appointment against the post of the Constable. It is contended by the Senior Counsel that a circular has been issued by the Department of Home contained in Annexure P/4 dated 05/06/2003. Along with the said circular, there is a list of various offences and as per the said list, except the offence under Section 458 of IPC, none of the offences involved moral turpitude. Therefore, considering the petitioner's acquittal, there was no impediment to consider the candidature of present petitioner, hence, submits that the impugned order be quashed.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's candidature was considered by the respondents. The petitioner since was seeking appointment in a disciplinary force, the employer has taken the decision after taking into consideration the past antecedents of the present petitioner and the said decision so taken by the employer, does not require any interference in absence of any infirmity or illegality. Hence, the petition is liable to the dismissed.

5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. In the case in hand, the petitioner is seeking induction in the disciplinary force as a Constable. Undisputedly, three cases against the petitioner were registered vide Crime No.60/04 with Police Station Cantt., Sagar, under Section 324, 323 of IPC, Crime No.372/04, Crime No.148/04 with Police Station Baheria, Sagar under Section 458, 294, 323, 427, 149 and 147 of IPC and under Section 324,323 and 34 of IPC. It is not clear from Annexure P/5 or the application form of the present petitioner that Crime No.372/04 was registered in which Police Station but it reflects from paragraph 12 of the application submitted by the petitioner that, two cases were registered with Police Station Sagar. A perusal of impugned order further reflects that the petitioner was acquitted in