Singarapu Anil Kumar vs The State Of Telangana
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
Between:
Singarapu Anil Kumar.
…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.6070 of 2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ W.P.No.6070 OF 2025
%
Dated 31.08.2026
# Singarapu Anil Kumar.
…Petitioner
and
$ The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department and others.
….Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Arvind Kumar Kata.
^ Counsel for respondent Nos.1,3 and 4: Assistant Government
Pleader for Services-Home
^Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy,
Standing Counsel.
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1
(2016) 8 SCC 471
2
(2023) 12 SCC 317
3
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 820
4
(2022) 1 SCC 1
5
2021 (6) ALD 727
6
(2024) SCC OnLine P & H 130
7
Un-reported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.444 of 2021 dated 25.04.2023.
8
Un-reported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25870 of 2022 dated 21.12.2023
9
(2013) 7 SCC 685
10
Unreported Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.No.20348 of 2012
11
(2018) 1 SCC 797
12
(2023) 7 SCC 536
13
2019 SCC OnLine SC 608
14
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104
15
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1004
3
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.6070 of 2025
(CNR No. HBHC010111112025)
Date:31.08.2026
Between:
Singarapu Anil Kumar.
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
…Respondents
ORDER:
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Services-Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1,3 and 4
and Sri C.Raja Shekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent No.2-Telangana Police Recruitment Board.
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.6070 of 2025
issuing the impugned Memorandum
Rc.No.34/Rectt./Genl.1/ 2024 dated 05.12.2024 cancelling
his selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police
Constable (Civil) [SCT PC (Civil)] in Jagtial District in the
respondent No.3-Organization, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the petitioner was provisionally selected as SCT PC (Civil) in
pursuance to the Notification Rc.No.41/Rect. /Admn.1/2022
dated 25.04.2022 issued by the respondent No.2. After being
provisionally selected, the petitioner filled up the attestation
form and disclosed with regard to registration of Crime
No.222 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 354-D, 354-A,
376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and under Section 6 of Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO
Act, 2012’) on the file of Gollapally Police Station. After filing
the charge sheet, the said crime was registered as S.C.No.22
of 2021 on the file of Fast Track Special Sessions Court for
Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act cases,
at Jagtial District, wherein the petitioner was acquitted vide
5
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
Judgment dated 12.09.2022. Hence, there was no
suppression of facts on his part.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice
dated 01.06.2024 to the petitioner to explain as to why his
selection should not be cancel led and the petitioner
submitted his explanation on 11.06.2024 stating that he was
falsely implicated by a rival group. Thereafter, without
considering his explanation, the respondent No.2 cancelled
the petitioner’s provisional selection vide impugned
proceedings in Memorandum Rc.No.34/Rectt./Genl.1/2024
dated 05.12.2024, on the ground that the petitioner is sole
accused involved in a serious case of moral turpitude.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the respondent authorities without taking into account of the
acquittal of the petitioner and only basing on the charge
sheet filed by the respondent authorities in the criminal case
passed the impugned proceedings. The petitioner was not
involved in any case of moral turpitude and he was falsely
implicated in the said criminal case and in view of the same,
6
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and the
same is liable to be set aside and requested to allow the writ
petition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
following Judgments:
1
(i) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India .
2
(ii) Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India .
(iii) Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment
3
Board vs. B. Lokeswaraiah .
4
(iv) Union of India vs. Methu Meda .
5
(v) Gugulothu Nagu vs. State of Telangana .
6
(vi) Deepak Kumar vs. Union of India .
7
(vii) A. Jithender vs. The State of Telangana .
(viii) Bommagani Dhanujay vs. The State of
8
Telangana .
1
(2016) 8 SCC 471
2
(2023) 12 SCC 317
3
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 820
4
(2022) 1 SCC 1
5
2021 (6) ALD 727
6
(2024) SCC OnLine P & H 130
7
Un-reported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.444 of 2021 dated 25.04.2023.
8
Un-reported Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.25870 of 2022 dated 21.12.2023
7
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
Contentions of the respondents:
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that
pursuant to Notification Rc.No.41/Rect./Admn.1/2022
dated 25.04.2022, the petitioner participated in the
recruitment process and was provisionally selected subject to
verification of antecedents. During verification, it was found
that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.222 of 2020
under Sections 354-D, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on the file of Gollapally Police
Station. The petitioner was arrested on 08.10.2020 and
remanded to judicial custody and charge sheet was filed.
8. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the
Government constituted a Screening Committee to examine
cases of candidates involved in criminal cases and deferred
the petitioner’s case and directed the respondent No.2 to take
further action after following due procedure. Since the
petitioner was involved in a serious criminal case of Moral
Turpitude, the respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to
the petitioner on 01.06.2024 and in response thereto, the
8
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
petitioner submitted an explanation on 11.06.2024. The
explanation of the petitioner was examined along with
connected records. Further, on perusal of the trial Court
Judgment in S.C.No.22 of 2021, it revealed that the victim,
her parents and other witnesses turned hostile and did not
support the prosecution case and the Court extended benefit
of doubt and the acquittal was not a clean acquittal on
merits. Accordingly, the petitioner’s selection was cancelled
vide impugned Memorandum dated 05.12.2024.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as per
Rule 3(F) of the SCT Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.97,
Home (Legal.II) Department, dated 01.05.2006, no person
shall be eligible for appointment unless his character and
antecedents satisfy the authority and as per Rule 3(G)(vi),
involvement in a case of moral turpitude is a disqualification
for appointment. He further submits that the petitioner being
the sole accused in a serious case of moral turpitude, his
acquittal on account of witnesses turned hostile does not
entitle him for appointment in the Police Force, which
9
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
requires impeccable character and integrity 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:
(i) Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others (1
supra)
9
(ii) Commissioner of Police vs. Mehar Singh
(iii) Union of India vs. Methu Meda (4 supra)
10
(iv) Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. B. Sandeep
(v) Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and
11
others vs. Pradeep Kumar and another
12
(vi) Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India
Consideration and findings:
11. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire
material on record, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of SCT
PC (Civil) in Jagtial District in pursuance to the Notification
9
(2013) 7 SCC 685
10
Unreported Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 14.06.2022 in W.P.No.20348 of 2012
11
(2018) 1 SCC 797
12
(2023) 7 SCC 536
10
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
No.41/Rect.Admn.1/2022 dated 25.04.2022. In spite of his
selection, the respondents have not sent him for training. At
that stage, the petitioner’s selection was cancelled on the
ground of moral turpitude as he was involved in Cr.No.222 of
2020 on the file of Gollapally Police Station, Jagityal District.
12. The main contention of the petitioner is that in spite of
disclosing of involvement in criminal case in the attestation
form as well as acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal
case, the respondents without taking into account of the
same, cancelled his provisional selection.
13. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is
that the selection of the candidates is prerogative of the
appointing authorities as per the Judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The involvement of the criminal case comes
under moral turpitude and as per the Recruitment Rules, the
petitioner has no right to question the decision of the
recruitment authority in cancellation of his selection.
14. The Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble
Supreme Court show that there is no dispute with regard to
the power of the recruitment authority to select or reject the
11
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
selection of the candidates, but how to deal with the issue
has to be considered in each case separately.
15. The criminal case in Cr.No.222 of 2020 on the file of
Gollapally Police Station, Jagityal District registered against
the petitioner under Sections under Sections 354-D, 354-A,
376(2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and under Section 6 of POCSO Act,
2012 was numbered as S.C.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Fast
Track Special Sessions Court for Expeditious Trial and
Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Jagtial. The said
case was ended with acquittal of the petitioner on
12.09.2022. Despite his acquittal, the respondent No.2
cancelled the selection of petitioner through the impugned
Memorandum dated 05.12.2024.
16. The relevant portion of the Judgment passed in
S.C.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Fast Track Special Sessions
Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO
Act Cases at Jagtial dated 12.09.2022 reads as under:
29. As P.Ws.1-5, 7 to 10, 12, 13 & 15 not supported the case of
prosecution, now it is to be seen whether the evidence of P.W.6, 14, 16 &
18 can be considered. The learned counsel for accused cross examined
them. P.W.6 in his cross examination admitted that he did not hand over
65-B certificate to police to say that he himself videographed the
recording and same was converted into CD by him. P.W.14 in her cross
12
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
examination deposed that she cannot say the house number where she
recorded the statement of victim girl. P.W.16 in her cross examination
admitted that Ex.P18 final opinion does not contain date. P.W.18 in his
cross examination admitted that in the copy supplied to the accused of
statement of P.W.1 there were corrections in respect of date. He admitted
that there is a delay in lodging the report by the PW1 and the delay not
explained in the report. He denied suggestion that the accused never
admitted his guilt and no confession and seizure panchanama was
conducted.
30. The victim and material witnesses not supported the case of
prosecution. The evidence of P.W14, 16 to 18 cannot be relied on to
connect the accused with the crime. There is no material evidence
brought on record against the accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed
to prove the ingredients of Sections 354-D, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506
of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the point is
answered.”
17. The operative portion of the impugned proceedings in
Memorandum dated 05.12.2024 reads as under:
“5. The explanation submitted by Sri Singarapu Anil Kumar
(Reg.No.1237762) has been examined along with the connected records.
He is sole accused involved in a serious case of Moral Turpitude. The
concerned Police, after full fledged investigation filed Charge Sheet proving
the case. The case acquitted because the victim, her parents and other
witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. His
acquittal was not a clean acquittal.
6. Hence, his Explanation deserves no consideration.
7. 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 authority that his character
and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.
8. 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 selection of the Stipendiary Cadet Sub-Inspectors of
Police and also Constables deals in Telangana Police
(Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 and amendments
issued in G.O.Ms.No.97 Home (Legal-II) dated 01.05.2006.
13
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
Rule 3(F) of the said Rules reads as under:
Antecedents verification: No person shall be eligible for appointment
to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the selection
authority as well as the appointing authority that his character and
antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service.
Rule 3(G)((vi) of the said Rules reads as under:
“3(G) Disqualification for appointment: The candidates falling under
the following categories shall be disqualified for appointment, under these
rules;
xxxx
(vi) A person who is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude.
The respondents have passed impugned Memorandum
only mentioning the above said Rules and stated that the
involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case was under
moral turpitude. The involvement of the petitioner in criminal
case can be considered as per Rule 3G(vi) of the above Rules,
but the respondents have mentioned Rule 3(F) of the above
Rules without giving any other reasons regarding the
character and antecedents of the petitioner. In view of the
same, the respondents without following the Rules
mechanically passed the impugned order by stating that the
involvement of the petitioner in criminal case as moral
14
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
turpitude. Mere involvement in each criminal case does not
amount to moral turpitude.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State Bank of India vs.
13
P. Soupramaniane , deals with moral turpitude and held in
para Nos.13, 14 and 16 as under:
“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.
16. There can be no manner of doubt about certain offences which can
straightaway be termed as involving moral turpitude e.g. offences under
the Prevention of Corruption of Act, NDPS Act , etc. The question that
arises for our consideration in this case is whether an offence involving
bodily injury can be categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude. In
this case, we are concerned with an assault. It is very difficult to state that
every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault
is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt
cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other
hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can cause the death of the
victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant
case, there was no motive for the Respondent to cause the death of the
victims. The criminal courts below found that the injuries caused to the
victims were simple in nature. On an overall consideration of the facts of
this case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the
Respondent does not involve moral turpitude. As the Respondent is not
guilty of an offence involving moral turpitude, he is not liable to be
discharged from service.
13
2019 SCC OnLine SC 608
15
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
The above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Both the
petitioner and the de-facto complainant in the criminal case
are residents of same village and the victim or her family
members do not come forward to give evidence against the
petitioner. As per para 13 and 14 of the above Judgment, the
offences charged against the petitioner cannot be treated as
moral turpitude. Therefore, the respondents cannot be
presumed summarily basing on the charge sheet that the
petitioner was involved in serious case of moral turpitude. In
view of the same, the involvement of the petitioner in criminal
case does not come under moral turpitude.
20. This Court in (5 supra) held in
Gugulothu Nagu’s case
para No.10 as under:
“ 10. It is necessary to point out that the trial Court recorded that the
prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and they are
entitled for benefit of the doubt. Though it is mentioned by the trial Court
that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, it is clear from the above
extracted portions of the judgment that it is not a case of acquittal on any
technical grounds or only because some of the witnesses have turned
hostile. In fact, the trial Court has categorically held that the prosecution
has not properly collected evidence or adduced any evidence to show that
the bonafide certificate and ID Card are seized from the possession of the
accused or collected from possession of PW1 (para 11 of the judgment of
the trial Court). Further, the trial Court held that the documents exhibited
by the prosecution are no way helpful to the case of the prosecution; the
total evaluation of oral and documentary evidence does not disclose or
establish essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC; since the seizure of
documents from the possession of accused was not proved therefore,
16
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
prosecution failed to adduce evidence to attract the essential ingredients of
Sections 420, 468 IPC. Thus, clear findings were given by the trial Court
holding that prosecution was not able to prove the charge against the
accused. Instead of making objective assessment of the judgment of the
trial Court the respondent No.3 got carried away by the expression 'benefit
of doubt'. The respondent No 3 should not have given undue emphasis to a
stray sentence or expression, ignoring the detailed findings given by the
trial Court. Thus, the finding in the impugned proceedings
dated 02.11.2017 that the acquittal of the accused is not clean and was
only by giving benefit of doubt is erroneous, perverse and vitiated by non-
application of mind”.
The above said findings of this Court were confirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.267 of 2023
dated 14.08.2023 and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(C) No.10830 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024. The above
findings are squarely apply to the instant case and the
respondents cannot assume that the acquittal of the
petitioner is not a clean acquittal.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after taking into account
of the various Judgments with regard to the police
recruitment by the Telangana Police Recruitment Board and
involvement of the candidates in criminal cases, passed
orders recently in
Gajula Thirupathi vs. Telangana State
14
Level Police Recruitment Board .
The relevant portion of the Judgment in
Gajula
Thuirupathi’s case (14 supra) is extracted as under:
14
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1104
17
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
Before addressing the rival submissions, we must put on record that
14.
there can be no cavil to the proposition that despite a truthful disclosure
by an aspiring candidate about a criminal case ending in acquittal, the
employer is free to take its own decision that such a candidate would not
be suitable for appointment and, therefore, not entitled to appointment.
However, it is equally settled that the State and its officers cannot act
arbitrarily. Therefore, when such a decision is subjected to judicial review,
to ensure that the same is not held arbitrary, in our view, it must be
demonstrated that, (a) there exists material on record to indicate that an
offence involving moral turpitude was indeed committed; and (b) there
exists material against the candidate even though he may have succeeded
in earning an acquittal or a discharge for reasons such as the benefit of: (i)
a technical latch, (ii) a reasonable doubt, (iii) the witnesses turning hostile,
either because they are won over or because they are threatened or lured
into a compromise. If after consideration of those facts an informed
decision is taken, the Courts should be slow to interfere with such a
decision of the employer/recruiter because ultimately the employer is the
best judge to assess whether a person is suitable for appointment in its
organization.
Xx
21 . The question that arises next is whether indictment alone in a police
report, based on allegations which have been withdrawn or not pressed, can
form the basis to form an adverse opinion about the character of the person
indicted.
22. In criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled that unless the charge is
proved in a court of law there shall be a presumption of innocence. No
doubt, where commission of the offence is proved but the accused is let off
for some technical reason or is given the benefit of doubt, the employer
may, based on the material available on record, conclude that person who
had got the benefit of doubt or technical latch is not suitable for
appointment. However, to form such an opinion there would have to be: (a)
evidence/material that the crime was committed and (b) some
evidence/material linking the person concerned to the crime.
xx
In contrast, here, notwithstanding the police report, which itself is
25.
based on statements recorded during investigation, there is a serious
doubt whether the offence of cheating was committed at all. Deposition of
the victim in court alone could have proved its commission, if at all.
Therefore, when the victim herself chose to withdraw the allegations and
compound the offence, there was no occasion to suspect the character of
the accused more so when both parties were adult and neighbors, knowing
each other for several years. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision
of the Screening Committee to
deny appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and was justifiably set
aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In our view, the
Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in setting aside the order of
the learned Single Judge. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.
18
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
As per above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
State and its Officers cannot act arbitrarily, but it must be
demonstrated based on the material available on record and
conclude that the person who had got benefit of doubt or
technical latch is not considerable for appointment only when
there is evidence/material that the crime was committed and
some evidence/material linking the person concerned to the
crime. In view of the same, the respondents have to verify the
facts of the criminal case and also the involvement of the
candidate for treating that the candidate involved in a
criminal case by showing some piece of evidence or material
pertaining to moral turpitude and the respondents cannot
rely only on the contents of the charge sheet filed by the
police in the criminal case. In the instant case, there is no
such evidence or material shown by the respondents and also
not given reasons in the impugned proceedings except
mentioning that the petitioner involved in criminal case.
19
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in
Ishwar Chand
15
Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh discussed with regard
to the abuse of POCSO Act. The relevant portion is as follows;
9.5 There are also instances where in cases of enmity between the
members of a family, between neighbours or business partners or
associates, or even between borrowers and lenders of financial
assistance, a weapon of harassment being resorted to is a complaint
under the POCSO Act at the instance of a parent of a child (in most
cases being the daughter) so as to wreak vengeance or to get over
civil disputes between the parties by a subdued accused under the
said Act yielding to the demands of the complainant. Also, the
threat of a false complaint under the POCSO Act is used as a means
to escape legal consequences arising out of a commercial
transaction, a matrimonial dispute or such other disputes.
9.6 While we are conscious of the fact that there are instances and
a plethora of cases that are true and deserve the utmost attention
and deft handling on the side of authorities and Courts and which
should be pursued vigorously to reach a logical conclusion, on the
other side of the spectrum, are cases invoking such serious and
heinous allegations which are prima facie vague, omnibus and
general in nature and thereby lacking any material backing or
evidence which should be shunned at the very threshold. We say so
for the reason that if a person is made an accused and forced to
face a criminal trial on general and sweeping allegations without
bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it
would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and court.
xxxxx
The above observations and findings of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court squarely apply to the instant case as the
petitioner and the de-facto complainant in the criminal case
are residents of the same village. At the time of trial, the
prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the respondents,
merely basing of the charge sheet filed by the police in the
15
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1004
20
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
criminal case, have passed the impugned Memorandum
cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Police Constable.
23. The number of Judgments relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent No.2 in the instant case were already
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Gajula
Thirupathi’s case (14 supra).
24. In view of the above circumstances, it clearly shows
that the respondent authorities without taking into account
of the facts and in a mechanical manner cancelled the
selection of the petitioner on the ground of mere involvement
of criminal case and the same is liable to be set aside and the
petitioner is entitled for selection.
25. In view of the above findings, the Writ Petition is
allowed by setting aside the impugned Memorandum
Rc.No.34/Rect./Genl.1/2024 dated 05.12.2024 and the
respondents are directed to continue the petitioner’s selection
for the post of SCT PC (Civil) in Jagtial District and further
directed to issue appointment orders and send him for
21
SK, J
W.P.No.6070 of 2025
training within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. 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.
sj