Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
A candidate does not acquire an indefeasible or vested right to appointment merely by being included in the final merit or select list. The right to appointment is not absolute and remains at the discretion of the appointing authority, which can consider various factors, including criminal antecedents, before making the final appointment ["Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550"], ["B.Mangilal vs The Telangana Genco - Telangana"], ["Kritika Sharma VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["GUDDETI SHYAM KUMAR vs TSGENCO M.D HYD ANDANOT - Telangana"], ["S.Satya Narayana vs The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd - Telangana"], ["Vishal Saraswat VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Rampur Gurjar vs Delhi Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Kuldeep Singh vs Delhi Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Abhishek Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Rajendra Kumar Yadav vs Delhi Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Harikesh Yadav vs Delhi Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Ram Sewak VS High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell - Allahabad"], ["Saurabh vs Delhi Police - Central Administrative Tribunal"], ["Ravindra Kumar VS State of U. P. - Supreme Court"], ["M.Arulkumar vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services - Madras"], ["Umesh Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Mahavir Chaudhary vs State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Bheeya Ram Jajra, S/o. Amara Ram VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Criminal Cases and Disclosure - Main points and insights:
Suppression or nondisclosure of pending criminal cases at the time of application can be grounds for disqualification or cancellation of candidature ["M.Arulkumar vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services - Madras"].
Legal and Judicial Principles - Main points and insights:
Conclusion:Having a pending criminal case does not confer a vested or automatic right to appointment. Even acquittal does not guarantee appointment, as the employer retains the authority to evaluate the candidate's overall suitability, including criminal antecedents and disclosure of facts. Candidates only have a right to consideration, not a right to appointment, which remains subject to the discretion of the appointing authority and relevant rules ["Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550"], ["B.Mangilal vs The Telangana Genco - Telangana"], ["Kritika Sharma VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Imagine acing a competitive recruitment process, topping the merit list, only to face rejection due to a lingering criminal case. Does participation in selection confer an automatic or vested right to appointment? This is a common dilemma for job seekers in government and public sector roles. In this post, we dive into Indian court rulings to clarify: does the candidate have a vested right to appointment after a recruitment, if he is having a criminal case pending against him?
The short answer, based on established precedents, is generally no. While candidates have a right to fair consideration, employers retain discretion to evaluate character and antecedents, including pending cases. This analysis draws from key judgments, offering guidance for candidates and employers alike. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Courts have consistently held that mere inclusion in a select list or success in exams and interviews does not create an indefeasible or vested right to appointment, especially with pending criminal proceedings. As clarified in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, inclusion in a select list or successful participation does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment Gurmeet Singh, S/o. Sukhdev Singh VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1004Vice Chancellor, University Of Allahabad VS Anand Prakash Mishra - 1997 4 Supreme 218.
The employer may scrutinize the candidate's character and antecedents, making pending cases a valid ground for non-appointment Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS PRADEEP KUMAR - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 11. Even acquittal later doesn't retroactively guarantee the job if candidature was already rejected Amarjot vs Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 893RAJ KUMAR VS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 1071ANIL BHARDWAJ VS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2020 6 Supreme 477.
Success in recruitment stages like written tests or interviews merely qualifies you for consideration. The Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission emphasized this: candidates have only a right to be considered, not an automatic right to be appointed Vice Chancellor, University Of Allahabad VS Anand Prakash Mishra - 1997 4 Supreme 218. A Rajasthan High Court ruling echoed that even selected candidates lack vested rights if eligibility issues, including criminal matters, arise State of Rajasthan VS Jagdish Chopra - 2007 6 Supreme 242.
Recent reinforcement comes from Subit Kumar Das (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243): placing of a candidate in a waitlist does not create a vested right for appointment... inclusion of name of a candidate in select list does not bestow a... AMITA KUMARI VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2194.
Employers must verify suitability before appointment. Pending criminal cases are fair game for review. In one case, the court upheld cancellation of candidature due to a pending case, noting acquittal post-process doesn't revive claims: acquittal does not confer a right to appointment once the candidature was canceled due to a pending criminal case Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550.
For police or disciplinary roles, scrutiny intensifies. In a Tamil Nadu Special Police case under IPC Sections 294(b), 352, and 506(i), non-disclosure led to rejection, but courts distinguished based on case gravity and settlement: When a person is acquitted... on benefit of doubt... candidature will have to be rejected yet allowed relief for minor, settled family disputes State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary of Government Home Department Secretariat, Chennai VS Tr. E. Sugumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2152. Another ruling stressed: if criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate... appointment authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary of Government Home Department Secretariat, Chennai VS Tr. E. Sugumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2152.
In Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service (IPC Sections 147, 148, etc.), denial was set aside as it contradicted departmental memos allowing consideration post-honorable acquittal: if after trial, the candidate is acquitted honourably then be considered for recruitment Ravi Kumar VS Director General of Police - 2016 Supreme(Raj) 1669.
Acquittal signals unproven charges but doesn't erase initial concerns. Courts note: acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION VS PRADEEP KUMAR - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 11. If rejection was during pendency and process concluded, no revival RAJ KUMAR VS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 1071.
Exceptions apply for honorable acquittals in minor cases without moral turpitude. A High Court directed reconsideration where prior findings cleared moral turpitude: no offence of moral turpitude made out... specific finding with respect to honourable acquittal Ravindra Kumar Pandoriya VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 401.
In judicial services like Tripura Judicial Service Rules, suitability under Rule 11 (moral character, fitness) allows withholding: a candidate whose name is placed in the select list also does not have a vested right of appointment Yoginder Pal VS High Court of Tripura. Yet, non-appointment must be reasoned.
For meritorious candidates, some relief: empanelment offers eligibility, not right, but selected ones may opt for adjusted posts P. Sreeram VS Chairman, Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 8Ravi Kumar VS Director General of Police - 2016 Supreme(Raj) 1669.
Rejection isn't automatic. Courts strike down arbitrary decisions: government’s decision... provided the decision is not arbitrary or mala fide RAJ KUMAR VS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 1071. Factors like offence nature, trial outcome, and integrity matter. Mechanical disqualification without assessment invites challenge.
Challenge only if rejection lacks reasoning or ignores honorable acquittal.
For Employers:
In summary, a pending criminal case typically negates any vested right to appointment post-recruitment. Employers hold the reins on final calls, guided by precedents like Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550, Gurmeet Singh, S/o. Sukhdev Singh VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1004, and others. Candidates should prioritize clean records, while employers ensure fair, non-arbitrary processes.
Key takeaway: Participation opens doors to consideration, not guarantees. Stay informed, act transparently, and consult professionals for tailored advice.
References (select excerpts):1. Ganesh Mahato, S/o. Sri Chandreshwar Mahato (Chouhan) VS State of Jharkhand through Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 550: Acquittal post-cancellation doesn't restore rights.2. Gurmeet Singh, S/o. Sukhdev Singh VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1004: No indefeasible right from select list.3. AMITA KUMARI VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2194: Waitlist/empanelment no vested right.4. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary of Government Home Department Secretariat, Chennai VS Tr. E. Sugumar - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2152: Assess seriousness even if undisclosed.5. Ravindra Kumar Pandoriya VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 401: Reconsider per prior honorable acquittal findings.
This post synthesizes public judgments for educational purposes (800+ words). Laws evolve; verify current status.
#EmploymentLaw, #CriminalCaseAppointment, #LegalRights
At the time of appointment, a criminal case was pending against the petitioner and admittedly, though he has been acquitted but that order of acquittal was passed after eight years i.e. in 2017. Furthermore, the recruitment process with respect to Advt. ... the ground that at the time of verification of document he did not disclose about the fact of pending criminal case against him. ... It has been further argued that even if the petitioner has been....
In Punjab SEB (supra), it was held that ‘It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. ... From the catena of judgments referred to, it is clear that candidate, who participated in the selection process, cannot claim an absolute right to appointment as vested right even if some of the vacancies remai....
Subit Kumar Das 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2243 holding that the placing of a candidate in a waitlist does not create a vested right for appointment. 15. ... It is trite law that only the empanelment does not create an indefeasible right to be appointed and on being selected, there is no vested right of appointment for future vacancies. ... (2013) 12 SCC 171, which held that inclusion of name of a candidate in select list does not bestow a....
It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment..' 24. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. ... The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. ... A #HL_ST....
In Punjab SEB (supra), it was held that ‘It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. ... From the catena of judgments referred to, it is clear that candidate, who participated in the selection process, cannot claim an absolute right to appointment as vested right even if some of the vacancies remai....
In Punjab SEB (supra), it was held that ‘It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of appointment. ... From the catena of judgments referred to, it is clear that candidate, who participated in the selection process, cannot claim an absolute right to appointment as vested right even if some of the vacancies remai....
Learned counsel contended that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a provisionally selected candidate to appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police, and the Screening Committee is vested with the authority to independently assess ... In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be ....
ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case. ... in the criminal case. ... [See Raj Kumar (supra)] b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate#HL_EN....
list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate to be appointed and the employer has a right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground. ... 2016 (8) SCC 471, the Supreme Court held that even if the candidate has truthfully disclosed the details of the criminal case registered or pending against him, still, the employer has the right to consider his fitness for #H....
ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case. ... The acquittal in the criminal case was not a clean acquittal but one based on benefit of doubt, as the prime prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and therefore the applicant cannot claim an automatic right to appointment. 3.2. ... candidate unsuitable for appointment as a Constable.
In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. If criminal case was pending but not know but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and he appointment authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
She submitted that suitability of a candidate for being appointed is one of the requirements under the rules. The High Court had not treated the said list as a select list. In any case, a candidate whose name is placed in the select list also does not have a vested right of appointment. The Full Court considered the suitability of the petitioner and found that his name should not be recommended for appointment.
7. It is contended that it is right of employer to grant the appointment to the candidate like petitioner who was having criminal case registered against him and the authority cannot be compel to grant appointment. It is submitted that the candidate like the petitioner cannot be granted appointment owing to the criminal antecedents. Thus, the order impugned passed by the authorities is rightly being passed and the same does not call for any interference.
No doubt, mere empaneling of a candidate does not give any vested right and at best, is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment. It is stated by the respondents that 183 candidates were short listed for appointment after selection process which runs to four stages and therefore, such meritorious selection is not under dispute. The facts of this case would clearly reveal that in terms of the first notification dated 23.08.2016, large number of candidates had participated and out of them only 183 candidates were short listed which include the petitioners als....
Para 5 of the Memorandum, however, refers that if a criminal case is registered against a candidate then he/she should not be given appointment but if after trial, the candidate is acquitted honourably then be considered for recruitment with the approval of the higher officer. Para 5 refers the situation where after trial, one is acquitted honourably.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
