Police Job Can Be Denied Despite Acquittal on Doubt | SC

Case Details: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajkumar Yadav [2026] 184 taxmann.com 279 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• N.V. Anjaria & Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
• Sarad Kumar Singhania, Aor, Karan Singh & Kanishk Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Ashutosh Yadav, Aors, Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Rajiv R. Mishra & Ms Suruchi Yadav, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent applied for the post of constable (driver) in the police force. During the character verification, the screening committee rejected his candidature on account of his involvement in a criminal case of kidnapping and the rape of a minor girl, which was a conduct undoubtedly amounting to moral turpitude.

The respondent challenged the rejection in a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, treating the acquittal as not clean and upholding the refusal to induct him into police service.

The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, quashed the screening committee’s decision and directed the competent authority to reconsider the respondent’s case for the appointment as constable (driver) by treating the acquittal as clean and honourable.

It was noted that the acquittal founded on the benefit of doubt is an acquittal based on technical grounds, and giving the benefit of doubt and thus not convicting the offender is a technical consideration applied.

Further, it was noted that, it is a question of recruiting a person into the service or continuing him in service or extending an employee some service benefit, his criminal antecedents, involvement in criminal activity, the conduct amounting to the moral turpitude, registration of a criminal case as well as nature of his acquittal in a criminal case are all germane considerations to be applied.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that the area of discretion vested with the screening committee in this regard is wide enough to permit it to exclude a candidate or reject him for the purpose of giving appointment.

The Supreme Court held that the domain of considering fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer and where the employer or screening committee of the employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject candidature by applying relevant considerations and has not acted arbitrarily or whimsically, Courts have no role to interpose.

Thus, the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court could not be sustained in the eye of the law and the same was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 297 of 2023 judgment dated 20.07.2023 (para 10) set aside

List of Cases Referred to

• Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 (para 5.3)
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 (para 5.4)
• Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration v. Pradeep Kumar (2018) 1 SCC 797 (para 5.5)
• Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [1994] 1993 taxmann.com 1218 (SC) (para 5.7)
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Parvez Khan (2015) 2 SCC 591 (para 7.2).