Police Recruitment Suitability Cannot Be Rejected Mechanically Without Assessing the Acquittal and Relevant Circumstances

Petitioner No. 2 challenged the rejection of his candidature for Constable GD (DEF) after he disclosed that he had been charged in Crime No. 113/2025 under Sections 74, 75(1)(iv), 78, 126(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He was acquitted by the trial court on 27 June 2025; the Screening Committee nevertheless found him unsuitable, citing the nature of the alleged offences and a purported criminal mindset.

Petitioner No. 2 contended that he had made a full disclosure, that the rejection did not address the acquittal or the applicable departmental circular, and that similarly situated candidates had been appointed.

Petitioner No. 1 did not press his claim after securing appointment in the Railway Protection Force; his petition was dismissed as not pressed, and the petition continued for petitioner No. 2.

1. Whether the Screening Committee could reject petitioner No. 2’s candidature mechanically on the basis of the charged offences and the fact of acquittal, without considering the circumstances of the case and the trial court’s findings.

2. Whether the impugned rejection required reconsideration under the applicable departmental circular and Supreme Court principles governing assessment of a candidate’s suitability after disclosure and acquittal.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court may review an administrative suitability decision for arbitrariness or non-application of mind.

Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 364, require the competent authority to assess the totality of the circumstances—including the nature of the allegations, the candidate’s role, the judgment of acquittal and subsequent conduct—rather than act mechanically on the registration of an FIR or the technical classification of an offence.

The Court also directed reconsideration in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Home Department Circular dated 24 July 2018.

The respondents relied on State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797, and Union of India v. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1, to argue that acquittal alone does not create an entitlement to appointment and that police suitability may be assessed by the employer.

The impugned orders referred to the FIR sections and inferred a criminal mindset but did not examine the trial court’s findings, the petitioner’s disclosure, or the evidence recorded at trial.

The trial court had recorded that the complainant withdrew her allegations and that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Although suitability remained for the employer to determine, the Committee’s decision was not shown to reflect the objective, case-specific assessment required by Avtar Singh and Pawan Kumar.

The petitioner No. 1’s provisional selection for the RPF after disclosure of the same antecedent was also identified as a matter warranting consideration.

The competent authority was directed to issue a reasoned order within 60 days of receiving a certified copy; if petitioner No. 2 is found suitable, appointment orders with notional seniority from the date his batchmates were appointed are to follow within two weeks.

The petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.