Kukkala Raju vs The State of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*
W.P.No.22550 of 2025
Between:
Kukkala Raju.

…Petitioner
AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department and others.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 31.08.2026


SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?

: Yes/No


2. Whether the copies of judgment
: Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship
: Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH

2
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

+ W.P.No.22550 OF 2025
%
Dated 31.08.2026
# Kukkala Raju.
…Petitioner
and

$ The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department and others.

….Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Ramesh Chilla.

^ Counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1, 3 and 4 : Learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services-Home

^ Counsel for the Respondent
No.2 : Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy,
Learned Standing Counsel.

< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1
(2019) 19 SCC 710
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104
3
(2016) 8 SCC 471
4
(2013) 7 SCC 685
5
(2022)1 SCC 1
6
Unreported Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.No.20348 of 2012
7
(2018) 1 SCC 797
8
(2023) 7 SCC 536
9
2019 SCC OnLine SC 608

3
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.22550 of 2025
(CNR No.HBHC010436812025)
DATE:31.08.2026
Between:
Kukkala Raju.
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department and others.
…Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services
(Home) appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4,
Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent No.2-Telangana State Level Police Recruitment
Board and perused the material available on record.
Contentions of the petitioner:
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in

4
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


issuing the memorandums vide Rc.No.78/Rect./Genl.1/
2020 dated 22.02.2021 and Rc.No.30/Rectt./Genl.1/2024
dated 25.06.2025 under 2018 and 2022 notifications
respectively, and not sending the petitioner for training to the
post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil)
[SCT PC (Civil)] or Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police
Constable, Telangana State Special Police (For brevity ‘SCT
PC (TSSP)) in pursuance to the respective Notifications as
illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said
Memorandums by directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s candidature for the post of SCT PC (Civil) in
Warangal selected under 2018 Notification, with all
consequential benefits including seniority.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner was selected for the post of SCT PC (Civil) in
Warangal pursuant to Notification Rc.No.88 &
90/Rect./Admn-1/2018 dated 31.05.2018 and after
verification, the respondents issued a memorandum
confirming that the petitioner would join training in the next
batch on 28.02.2020. However, during medical test on

5
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


06.10.2020 at Khammam Area Hospital, a colour vision issue
was reported and he was referred to Sarojini Devi Eye
Hospital, Hyderabad. On 20.10.2020, the hospital authorities
have confirmed the problem leading to cancellation
Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. Due to suffering from
jaundice and COVID-19 at that time are likely affected the
results and a private hospital later certified that there was no
colour vision defect.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner again applied in pursuance to Notification for
the year, 2022 and selected for the post of SCT PC (TSSP).
After being provisionally selected, the petitioner filled up the
attestation form and disclosed with regard to registration of
Crime No.27 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 302,
307, 506 read with 34 IPC on the file of Tadvai Police Station,
Warangal District and he was declared fit in the medical test.
However, he was not called for training by the respondents in
view of involvement in criminal case. On 12.08.2024, a show
cause notice was issued regarding the criminal case and the
petitioner responded with all details by informing that at the

6
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


time of said crime he was minor and the said crime was
registered as CC No.105 of 2009 on the file Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Warangal, wherein the
petitioner was acquitted vide Judgment dated 01.02.2012.
In spite of the same, the respondents have not taken into
account of the same and passed impugned Memorandum
dated 25.06.2025 citing as “Moral Turpitude” due to the
criminal case.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the inconsistent action of the respondents in permitting the
candidature in Notification, 2018 and rejecting it in
Notification, 2022 despite full disclosure and repeated
medical examinations, certificates of fitness constitute
harassment and an abuse of process and it infringes upon
the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India. The allegation of “Moral
Turpitude” is baseless as the petitioner was never convicted
and the respondents have to appoint the petitioner without
reference to involvement in criminal case as Juvenile and

7
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


requested to allow the writ petition by directing the
respondents to issue posting order to the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following Judgments:
1
(i) Union of India vs. Ramesh Bishnoi ,
(ii) Gajula Thirupathi vs. Telangana State Level Police
2
Recruitment Board .
Contentions of the respondents:
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that pursuant
to the Recruitment Notification dated 31.05.2018, the
petitioner was provisionally selected subject to verification of
antecedents, certificates and medical fitness. During
verification of antecedents, the Commissioner of Police,
Khammam, informed vide report dated 30.01.2020 that the
petitioner did not mention with regard to involvement in the
criminal case in the Attestation Form, but during re-enquiry
it revealed that he was not involved in any criminal case in

1
(2019) 19 SCC 710
2
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104

8
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


Khammam Police Commissionerate. The petitioner was
referred for medical examination on 06.10.2020 and found to
have “Defective Colour Vision”. The Medical Board of Sarojini
Devi Eye Hospital declared him unfit due to “Colour Vision
Defect” on 20.10.2020. In view of the same, his provisional
vide
selection under the Notification, 2018 was cancelled
impugned Memorandum dated 22.02.2021.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
petitioner again participated in the Notification for the year,
2022 and selected subject to verification. It was reported by
the Intelligence Department that the petitioner was involved
in Crime No.27/2009 under Sections 302, 307, 506 r/w 34
IPC registered at Tadvai Police Station alleging that on
04.04.2009, the petitioner’s sister lodged a complaint stating
that the petitioner and his father attacked her and her
mother with a knife and stick resulting her mother’s death on
the spot. In the said case, the petitioner was acquitted as the
material witnesses did not support the prosecution case.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
Government constituted a Screening Committee and deferred

9
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


the petitioner’s case. A show cause notice was issued on
12.08.2024, to which the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 23.08.2024. As per Rule 3(F) of the Telangana
Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 amended vide
G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal.II) Department, dated
01.05.2006, no person shall be eligible for appointment
unless he satisfies the authority that his character and
antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service. As
per Rule 3(G)(vi), involvement of a person in a case of moral
turpitude is a disqualification for appointment. The
petitioner along with his father has committed the offence
and murdered his own mother. Though he was a juvenile, he
was old enough to understand the consequences. The
petitioner was involved in a heinous offence of murder of his
own mother and attempt to murder of his sister. Acquittal by
the Juvenile Justice Board was not a case of clean acquittal
on merits as the complainant and other material witnesses
turned hostile. In view of the same, his selection under the
Notification, 2022 was cancelled vide impugned

10
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


Memorandum dated 25.06.2025 and requested to dismiss the
writ petition.
10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following
Judgments:
3

(i) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others ,
4
(ii) Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh ,
5

(iii) Union of India vs. Methu Meda ,
6
(iv) Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. B. Sandeep ,
(v) Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and
7
others vs. Pradeep Kumar and another ,
8
(vi) Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India .
Consideration and Findings:
11. After hearing both sides and perusing the entire
material on record, this Court is of the considered view that

3
(2016) 8 SCC 471
4
(2013) 7 SCC 685
5
(2022)1 SCC 1
6
Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.No.20348 of 2012 (Unreported)
7
(2018) 1 SCC 797
8
(2023) 7 SCC 536

11
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


the petitioner was initially selected as SCT PC (Civil) in
Warangal in pursuance of the Notification
Rc.No.88/Rect./Admn-1/2018 dated 31.05.2018. At the
time of medical examination, the petitioner was declared as
medically unfit on the ground of defective colour vision and
the respondents have cancelled his provisional selection vide
impugned Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. The counter
averments of the respondent No.2 shows that at the time of
verification, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a
criminal case and called for a report from the Commissioner
of Police, Khammam. In response to the same, the
Commissioner of Police, Khammam, submitted a report dated
30.01.2020 stating that the petitioner is not involved in any
criminal case in Khammam Police Commissionerate
Jurisdiction. In view of the same, on the ground of defective
colour vision, the respondents have cancelled the selection of
the petitioner.
12. The representations dated 21.12.2019 and 04.01.2021
filed by the petitioner to the respondent No.2-Board, at page
Nos.133 and 134 of the writ petition, clearly shows that the

12
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


petitioner without disclosing the criminal case registered
against him before the Police Station Tadvai, which is
situated in Warangal District, submitted attestation form and
it amounts to suppression of fact. In spite of that the
respondent authorities have issued impugned Memorandum
dated 22.02.2021 on the ground of colour blindness. The
petitioner without questioning the said Memorandum dated
22.02.2021 till cancellation of his provisional selection for
subsequent Notification filed this writ petition questioning the
Memorandum dated 22.02.2021. In the instant writ petition,
at this stage, the question of setting aside the cancellation of
provisional selection of the petitioner vide Memorandum
dated 22.02.2021 does not arise on the ground of delay and
latches as well as suppression of fact in the attestation form
by not disclosing of criminal case.
13. The petitioner again appeared for the Notification
Rc.No.41/Rect./Admn.1/2022 dated 25.04.2022 and selected
for the post of SCT PC (TSSP), but the respondents have not
sent him for training and issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner on 12.08.2024 on the ground that the petitioner

13
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


was involved in Cr.No.27 of 2009 under Section 302, 307,
506 read with Section 34 IPC on the file of Tadvai Police
Station. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted
explanation stating that at the time of the said crime, the
petitioner was minor and the case was ended with acquittal
in C.C.No.105 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Warangal dated 01.02.2012.
Thereafter, the respondents have passed the impugned
Memorandum on 25.06.2025.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that in earlier
recruitment notification, the respondents have cancelled the
selection of the petitioner on the ground of defective colour
vision and in the subsequent recruitment notification, the
respondents have cancelled the selection of the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner was involved in the criminal
case as a Juvenile and it comes under moral turpitude. The
competent Court acquitted the petitoner and the same was
disclosed in the attestation form. As per the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, all past records
of a minor should be erased and without taking into account

14
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


of the same, the respondents have cancelled the selection of
the petitoner.
15. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is
that the petitioner was involved in criminal case, which is a
heinous crime i.e., murder of the mother of the petitoner and
also attempt to murder of the sister of the petitioner. In view
of the same, the petitioner cannot take shelter under Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 for
appointment of the Police Constable.
16. The operative portion of the Judgment in C.C.No.105 of
2009 on the file of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Warangal dated 01.02.2012 is extracted as under:
“Though the learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of
P.Ws 1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P7, on perusal of the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant.
P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident, but none
of the witness deposed the involvement of JCL in the present
case except the prosecution marked Ex.P2 to P4 and
statements u/s.161 Cr.P.C., by P.Ws.1 to 3 and that learned
prosecutor also relied on the evidence of P.W.4 who is
Investigating Officer and his evidence may be corroborated
with regard to apprehension of JCL, recording panchanama
and registering of case, but at the same time the evidence of
P.W.4 is not alone sufficient to make the JCL liable in the
present crime. Added to that when the material witness did
not support to the version of prosecution, the evidence of PW-
4 is no where helpful to the case of prosecution.

15
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


On considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with
Ex.P1 to P7 the prosecution have not put forth any valid and
cogent reasons to believe the confession of JCL and seizure of
the case property from the possession of JCL and the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Juvenile beyond
reasonable doubt.”
17. The operative portion of the impugned order
dated 25.06.2025 is extracted as under:
“The explanation submitted by Sri Kukkala Raju
(Reg.No.1102862) has been examined along with the
connected records. He along with his father committed the
offence and murdered his own mother. Though he was
Juvenile but he was old enough to understand the
consequences and evil that would follow his action. His
involvement was in a heinous offence and the victim/deceased
was his own mother. A perusal of the Trial Court Judgment
(Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Warangal)
shows that the complainant and other material witnesses not
supported the case of prosecution and the court acquitted him
vide Judgment
dated 01.02.2012. It is not a case of clean acquittal on
merits. The candidate is found not suitable for the police Job.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4842/2013
between Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another vs.
Mehar Singh held that;
“The Police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders
the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and
public order in the society. People repose great faith and
confidence in it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A
candidate wishing to join Police Force must be a person
of utmost rectitude. He must have impeccable character
and integrity. A person having criminal antecedent will
not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or
discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or
discharge order will have to be examined to see whether
he has been completely exonerated in the case because
even a possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses
a threat to the discipline of the Police Forces”.
As per Rule 3 (F) of the SCT Rules, no person shall be eligible
for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he
satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing

16
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


authority that his character and antecedents are such as to
qualify him for such service.
7. Further, as per rule 3(G)(vi) of the SCT Rules issued vide
G.O.Ms.No.97 of Home (Legal-II) Dept. dated 01.05.2026
involvement of a person in a case of Moral Turpitude is a
disqualification for appointment.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs.
9
P. Soupramaniane , deals with moral turpitude and the
relevant portion as follows:-
“13. Ordinarily, the tests that can be applied for judging an
offence involving moral turpitude are:
a) Whether the act leading to a conviction was such as could
shock the moral conscience or society in general;
b) Whether the motive which led to the act was a base one,
and
c) Whether on account of the act having been committed the
perpetrators could be considered to be of a depraved
character or a person who was to be looked down upon by
the society.
14. The other important factors that are to be kept in mind
to conclude that an offence involves moral turpitude are :– the
person who commits the offence; the person against whom it
is committed; the manner and circumstances in which it is
alleged to have been committed; and the values of the society.
The above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
squarely apply to the facts of the instant case as the act
leading to a conviction could shock the moral conscience or
society in general.

9
2019 SCC OnLine SC 608

17
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


19. As per para Nos. 13 and 14 of the Judgment in
State
Bank of India’s case (9 supra), the involvement of the
petitioner in the criminal case amounts to moral turpitude as
the petitioner was accused along with his father on the
allegation of murder of his mother and also attempt to
murder of his sister. In view of the same, the involvement of
the petitioner in criminal case comes under moral turpitude
as per Rule 3(G)(vi) of Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet
Trainee) Rules,1999 and amendments issued in
G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) dated 01.05.2006.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended
that at the time of incident, the petitioner was a Juvenile and
as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union
of India’s case (1 supra), even if the petitioner has committed
the crime, the same could not have been deprived of getting a
job as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on
Section 3 (xiv) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, which reads as under:

18
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


3. (xiv) Principle of fresh start: All past records of any child
under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in
special circumstances.
As per the above Section, in special circumstances, the
principle of fresh start cannot apply. The petitioner was
involved in a criminal case of murder of his mother and
attempt to murder of his sister and the past records of the
petitioner cannot be erased for appointment of the petitioner
as Police Constable as special circumstances.
22. The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Union Bank of India’s case (1 supra) and
case (2 supra) are not apply to the facts
Gajula Thirupathi’s
of the case. At the time of first recruitment notification, the
petitioner has suppressed the fact and in the subsequent
notification the respondents have rejected the case of the
petitioner on the ground of moral turpitude. The impugned
Memorandums issued by the respondent No.2 for
cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioner for the
post of SCT PC (Civil) and SCT PC (TSSP) are in consonance
with the Special Rules.

19
SK, J
W.P.No.22550 of 2025


23. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2
relied on a number of Judgments, but only some of them
apply to the facts of the instant case and the other
Judgments do not apply to the facts of the case.
24. In view of the above circumstances, there are no valid
grounds to interfere with the impugned Memorandums
issued by the respondent No.2 on the ground of involvement
of the petitioner in criminal case amounts to moral turpitude
and there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits. There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ
petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:31.08.2026.

Note: LR copy to be marked.

sj