Suitability for Home Guard and Police Force posts cannot be equated due to fundamental differences in duties and responsibilities.

The respondent, Piyush Sharma, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector (District Force). His candidature was rejected by the competent authority on 15/08/2018 because he had been tried for offenses including Section 327 of the IPC (involving moral turpitude), despite being acquitted in 2013.

Notably, the respondent had already been appointed as a Platoon Commander (Home Guards) in 2018.

A Single Judge of the High Court, in W.P. No. 27813/2021, set aside the rejection and directed his appointment as Sub-Inspector, ruling that since he was found fit to be a Platoon Commander, he could not be rejected for the Sub-Inspector post based on the same criminal antecedents.

During the pendency of the dispute, a subsequent writ petition (W.P. No. 7153/2026) was filed, where the court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against the police authorities, compelling them to issue an appointment order on 17/03/2026.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that fitness for the post of Platoon Commander automatically implies fitness for the post of Sub-Inspector (District Force) regarding criminal antecedents

2. Whether the Court can directly order an appointment or should instead remand the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of suitability

3. Whether the writ appeal became infructuous after the State issued the appointment order under the threat of contempt

The Court relied on the Madhya Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1947, specifically Sections 7, 10, and 11, to distinguish between the voluntary/supplementary nature of Home Guards and the regular Police Force.

It applied the principles from Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, which established that an employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint a candidate even after acquittal in cases involving moral turpitude.

It further referenced Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra (Civil Appeal No. 10571 of 2018), noting that the yardstick of suitability varies by service.

Jitendra Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 25262/2018), emphasizing that authorities must judge suitability relative to the specific post.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge erred by failing to compare the disparate duties of a Platoon Commander and a Sub-Inspector.

Under the Home Guards Act, a Platoon Commander is a volunteer supplementing the force, whereas a Sub-Inspector in the District Force exercises extensive powers of investigation, prosecution, and prevention under the Cr.P.C./BNSS.

Fitness for a supplementary role does not equate to fitness for a regular police role.

Furthermore, the Court held that the department is the "best judge" of suitability; unless the rejection is shown to be based on whims, the judiciary should not mandate an appointment but should only remand the matter for fresh consideration.

Regarding the 17/03/2026 appointment, the Court determined that since it was issued under the compulsion of suo motu contempt proceedings rather than voluntarily, it did not render the appeal infructuous.

It held that the comparison between the two posts was legally unsustainable.

Consequently, the appointment order dated 17/03/2026 issued under contempt threat was declared non-est.

The Court ordered the respondent to immediately cease functioning as Sub-Inspector (District Force). To prevent prejudice, his prior resignation from the post of Platoon Commander was also declared non-est, and the State was directed to reinstate him to his original position as Platoon Commander.