Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUSHIL KUMAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on
September 6, 1995 in OA No. 1756/9l. The admitted position
is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a
Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year l989-90 with
Roll No.65790. Though he was found physically fit through
endurance test, written test and interview and was selected
provisionally, his selection was subject to verification of
character; and antecedents by the local police. On
verification, it was found that his atecedents were such
that his appointment to the post of Constable was not found
desirable. Accordingly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by
proceedings dated December 18, 1990 culminating in
cancellation of his provisional selection he filed OA in the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in the
impugned order allowed the application on the ground that
since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section
324 read with 34 IPC and under Section 394 IPC, he cannot
be denied the right of appointment to the post under
the State. The question is: whether the view taken by
the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification
of the character and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable
to a post under the State. Though he was physically found
fit, Passed the written test and interview and was
provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record,
the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a
person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined
forces The view taken by the appointing authority in the
background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The
Tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the
direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was
discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same
has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant
is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed
to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law
will take care of the consequences. The consideration
relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate.
Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed this
aspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to the
service.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
Tribunal stands set aside. No costs.