Candidature cannot be cancelled based on misinterpretation of an acquittal where evidence clearly exonorates the applicant.

The respondent, a Constable in the Delhi Police, applied for the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) in 2022.

During the recruitment process, he disclosed in his attestation form his prior involvement in FIR No. 265/2015 under Sections 143/323/341/504 IPC.

Despite clearing the selection rounds, he was issued a show-cause notice regarding this disclosure.

Consequently, the Screening Committee cancelled his candidature on December 10, 2024, asserting that his acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, Kota, was not "honourable" but based on a "benefit of doubt" since witnesses had turned hostile.

The respondent challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed his plea on November 13, 2025, finding that the respondent was actually exonerated on merits rather than a mere compromise.

The Commissioner of Police subsequently filed this writ petition challenging the CAT's order.

1. Whether the Screening Committee misread the criminal court's judgment to incorrectly classify the respondent's acquittal as a "technical acquittal" rather than an "honourable" one.

2. Whether the respondent’s prior involvement in a criminal case, where he was found to have no active role, justified the cancellation of his candidature for a disciplined force.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the suitability of candidates with criminal antecedents for disciplined forces as established by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016).

These principles dictate that if a candidate truthfully declares a concluded criminal case, the employer must objectively consider the nature of the offence, the extent of involvement, and the propensity for future misconduct.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. Methu Meda (2022) and its own precedent in Sandeep K.L. v. Union of India (2025), which emphasizes that a Screening Committee cannot sit in appeal over a criminal court's findings or mechanically disqualify a candidate without assessing the specific grounds of acquittal.

The Court observed that the Screening Committee failed to holistically read the Judicial Magistrate’s judgment. While two co-accused (Mukesh and Sunil) were acquitted based on a compromise, the respondent (Accused 5) was acquitted because the prosecution witnesses specifically testified that only Mukesh and Sunil had assaulted them, and that the other accused were not involved.

Consequently, the charge under Section 143 IPC (unlawful assembly) failed as the legal requirement of five or more persons was not met.

The Court reasoned that the respondent’s acquittal was "clean and honourable" because no evidence linked him to the assault.

Following the logic in Sandeep K.L., the Court found that the respondent had truthfully disclosed the FIR and that his involvement was non-existent. The Screening Committee's decision was deemed arbitrary as it ignored the specific findings of the criminal court and failed to evaluate the respondent's "propensity" for future violence.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Tribunal's judgment. The Delhi Police was directed to proceed with the respondent’s appointment as he was otherwise successful in the selection process. No orders as to costs were made.