Discretionary rejection of candidature based on minor charges and honorable acquittal is unsustainable.

Mohan Kumar, the applicant, was a candidate for the post of Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police.

He was working as a regular Conductor in the Jaipur City Transport Service Ltd.

An FIR No. 551/15 was lodged against him on November 23, 2015, under Sections 143, 332, 353, 341, 379, 427 of the IPC, and subsequently, a cross FIR No. 553/15 was registered against him on the same date under Sections 323, 341, 354, 506 of the IPC.

The applicant disclosed these particulars in his attestation form.

Both FIR proceedings were closed after a settlement was reached.

The charge sheet for FIR No. 551/15 was filed only under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, not including Section 354.

The Screening Committee rejected his candidature for the post of Constable Driver (Male) based on the FIRs, citing a "premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law" and stating that "a candidate who has no respect for a woman cannot be appointed in a law enforcing and disciplined force".

The Screening Committee did not consider the cross-FIR or the fact that the charge sheet was only for Sections 323 and 341.

The applicant impugned this rejection as perverse and illegal.

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 6, 2024, and show cause notice dated April 4, 2024, should be quashed and set aside.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Constable (Driver) with all consequential and seniority benefits.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of Original Applications.

It considered the principles regarding the discretion of screening committees in appointment matters, acknowledging the allowance for the committee to assess the nature of involvement and criminal propensity notwithstanding acquittal, as per Union of India v. Methu Meda (2022 1 SCC 1).

The court also referred to the Delhi Police Standing Order No. 12/2022, which guided the committee's decision despite the applicant's contention that the acquittal was "honorable".

The Court found that the Screening Committee failed to take a holistic view of the matter, particularly by ignoring that the applicant was charge-sheeted for only Sections 323 and 341 IPC, and not Section 354, despite the initial FIR mentioning it.

The Court noted the existence of a cross FIR (No. 553/15) lodged against the applicant on the same date, which should have been considered.

The Court found the Screening Committee's observations about the applicant's "premeditated tendency to indulge in crime without fear of law" and lack of "respect for a woman" to be without substantial evidence, especially given his prior employment as a conductor where such altercations might occur.

The Screening Committee’s discretion, while vested in the executive domain, was not judicially exercised on the touchstone of available facts and the criminal trial's outcomes.

The Court emphasized that there shouldn't be a "stay captive formula" that adversely impacts an applicant's career prospects.

The respondents are directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, along with consequential reliefs including monetary and seniority benefits.

The Original Application was disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs.