Exoneration by investigating agency and stay on property disputes preclude denial of appointment based on adverse verification.

The applicant applied for the post of Constable in the 02 Border Battalion, J&K Police, under the ALC/IB category pursuant to a 2019 advertisement.

He qualified the physical tests and secured 90 marks in the written exam, placing him at Serial No. 52 in the Open Merit category for District Jammu.

Despite completing document verification and medical exams, his appointment was withheld based on an adverse CID verification report.

The report cited two FIRs: one by the CBI regarding recruitment irregularities (RC0042022A0008) and another involving a private property dispute (FIR No. 226/2023).

However, the CBI subsequently filed a supplementary charge-sheet dropping the applicant’s name, and the J&K High Court stayed the proceedings of the second FIR.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for his appointment.

1. Whether the mere registration of an FIR, without conviction or substantive material, constitutes a valid ground to deny appointment to a selected candidate?

2. Whether the respondents’ decision to withhold the applicant’s appointment based on an adverse CID report was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

The Tribunal applied the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It followed the settled legal position that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment but prevents the State from acting arbitrarily.

It relied on judicial precedents, notably Sapna Sharma v. State of J&K, which held that the mere pendency of a criminal case is insufficient to deny appointment.

The court further applied the principle that an appointing authority must perform an objective assessment of suitability rather than mechanical reliance on police reports.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant was a meritorious candidate who had cleared all recruitment stages.

It reasoned that the adverse CID report lost its legal force because the investigating agency (CBI) specifically exonerated the applicant in the first FIR via a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Regarding the second FIR, the Tribunal noted it was a private property dispute already stayed by the High Court, meaning no criminal liability was currently established.

The court found that the respondents acted "mechanically" by failing to independently evaluate the nature of the allegations or the subsequent exoneration.

Consequently, since the stigma attached to the FIRs vanished upon the applicant's removal from the array of accused, the denial of appointment was deemed disproportionate and unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to process the applicant's appointment against the post reserved by the interim order dated 22.02.2024.

The court ordered that the applicant be granted notional seniority from the date his immediate junior was appointed, though actual salary would be payable only from the date of joining under the "no work no pay" principle.

The exercise must be completed within 12 weeks.