THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1104 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

This Writ Appeal is filed by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, assailing the common order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.40400 of 2018 and W.P.No.880 of 2020. By the said order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Writ Petitioner’) and directed the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein (hereinafter ‘respondents’ in the writ petition) to appoint the writ petitioner as a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Sub-Inspector (Civil) and to send him for training in the next training camp.

2. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Board; the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) for the respondents in the writ petition; and Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner at considerable length and perused the material on record, including the pleadings and the precedents cited.

3. The factual matrix, in the present case, is that the writ petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector (APSP) pursuant to a notification Rc.No.931/R&T/Rect.1/2011, dated 03.11.2011. His selection was cancelled vide Rc.No.63/Rectt./Genl.I/2014 dated 26.11.2014 on the ground of his alleged involvement in three criminal cases. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner was acquitted in all these cases, the last of which was in 2007, i.e., well before the issuance of the recruitment notification in 2011. The core dispute revolves around the writ petitioner’s initial non-disclosure and subsequent disclosure of these antecedents in the attestation forms and the appellant Board’s consequent rejection of his candidature, deeming him unsuitable for police service.

4. The learned Single Judge, after a thorough analysis of the facts and the law, particularly the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India1, concluded that:

a) The earlier acquittals of the writ petitioner, one of which was a clean acquittal on merits and the other on benefit of doubt due to the prosecution's failure to prove the charges wiped the slate clean.

b) The initial non-disclosure was a ‘bona fide mistake’ and an inadvertent omission, made under the bona fide belief that the acquittal rendered the disclosure already closed cases unnecessary. The same was promptly rectified by the writ petitioner within a month by submitting a fresh attestation form containing full and truthful disclosure.

(2016) 8 SCC 471

c) The appellants failed to apply the nuanced principles of Avtar Singh's case (supra), which mandate a case-by- case analysis considering the nature of the offence, the age of the candidate at the time of the incident, and the nature of the acquittal.

d) The writ petitioner was similarly situated to other candidates who were appointed. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment in the matter of regularization.

5. The appellant Board, in this appeal, has raised several grounds, contending that:

(i) The learned Single Judge erred in not giving due weightage to the opinion of the specially constituted Screening Committee, which found the petitioner unsuitable.

(ii) The initial suppression of information, even if later corrected, demonstrated a lack of integrity.

(iii) The offences involved, including one under Section 379 IPC (theft), involve moral turpitude.

(iv) Directing appointment after such a long lapse of time (since the 2011 notification) creates administrative issues concerning seniority and vacancies.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that the order of the learned Single Judge was a well reasoned order which did not warrant any interference by this Court.

7. We have considered the respective submissions made; and we find no merit in this