A disclosed criminal case ending in acquittal cannot alone justify rejecting a candidate’s candidature.

The petitioner challenged a memo dated 20 August 2026 rejecting his candidature for the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary on the ground of a criminal case.

He had been charged under Sections 452/34, 354/34, 354-B, 294/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted by judgment dated 13 March 2019.

He stated that he had disclosed the case and his acquittal in his application and had attached the acquittal judgment; he also disclosed that, after an earlier removal from service, he had been reinstated.

The respondents relied on Clause 8 of the recruitment advertisement, including provisions concerning prior removal from service and criminal cases.

The petitioner sought to quash the rejection memo.

1. Whether the petitioner’s candidature could be rejected for non-disclosure of the criminal case when his application disclosed the case and acquittal and included the acquittal judgment.

2. Whether the petitioner’s acquittal and subsequent reinstatement meant that the conditions in Clause 8 of the advertisement justified rejecting his candidature.

The Court considered Clause 8(6), (12), (13) and (14) of the recruitment advertisement.

As described by the parties, these provisions addressed prior removal from service, disclosure of criminal proceedings, and disqualification arising from specified convictions.

The Court applied those conditions to the petitioner’s disclosed acquittal and reinstatement; it cited no statute or judicial precedent as the basis of its decision.

The record showed that the petitioner had specifically disclosed the criminal case and his acquittal in his application and had enclosed the acquittal judgment, contradicting the respondents’ assertion of non-disclosure.

The petitioner had also been reinstated after his earlier removal, and that reinstatement was disclosed.

In light of those facts, the Court held that the grounds advanced under Clause 8 did not justify rejecting his candidature.

It allowed the petition and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the further stages of recruitment in accordance with law.

The post had previously been directed to be kept vacant, and the respondents were directed to proceed with the petitioner’s candidature accordingly.