Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajendra Kumar Yadav vs Delhi Police on 15 January, 2026
1
Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No. 4939/2024
Reserved on:- 07.01.2026
Pronounced on:- 15.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Rajendra Kumar Yadav,
S/o Shri Rudal Yadav,
R/o H. No. 33, Pagar Siswa,
PS. Ramkola,
Post Laxmiganj, Kushinagar,
UP-274306.
...Applicant
(By Advocates: Ms. Rhea Verma with Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Additional Commissioner of Police,
Recruitment,
New Police Lines,
Kingsway Camp,
Delhi - 110009.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Manupriya Verma Rawat)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.16
11:42:50
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024
Court No. IV
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) In the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 04.11.2024 and grant appointment to the Applicant w.e.f. the date when others who had participated in the examination and succeeded, were granted appointment;
(ii) Direct the Respondents to award all consequential benefits, including back wages, continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and
(iii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a duly selected candidate for the post of Constable (Exe.) Male, who successfully cleared all stages of the recruitment process and truthfully disclosed his involvement in a criminal case arising out of a trivial village dispute leading to registration of FIR No. 42/2020 against him at PS -Ramkola, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. The said case culminated in a clear acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 13.05.2024, wherein the prosecution witnesses failed to support the allegations, the complainant denied his earlier statement, and the court recorded categorical findings that no material, evidence, or testimony existed to establish the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.05.2024, reads as under:
"The prosecution, for proving its case, has examined only two witnesses. The complainant of the case, Shailesh, was examined as PW-1, and Rajkumar was examined as PW-2. The aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case in their respective examination-in-chief. In addition to this, no other witness has been examined on behalf of the complainant in the present case. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution case falls within the realm of doubt. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons has admitted the formal truthfulness of the prosecution documents; however, this fact alone cannot be the basis of any adverse presumption against the defence, because in the matter in question no credible evidence or testimony in support of the charges has been produced by the prosecution through which the charges levelled against the accused persons could be verified.Thus, there is nothing in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses which points towards the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses available on record, the accused persons Shubham Pathak, Kinnu Yadav @ Rajendra, and Shailesh Yadav cannot be convicted.
In view of the aforesaid analysis and all the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Shubham Pathak, Kinnu Yadav @ Rajendra, and Shailesh Yadav, punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons, it is justified to acquit them of the charges levelled against them."
2.1. Highlighting the aforesaid, learned counsel argued that despite such acquittal, the respondents issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2024 questioning the applicant's suitability solely on account of his past involvement in the criminal case. The applicant submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances of the case, the trivial nature of the dispute, and the judicial findings exonerating him. However, disregarding the acquittal, the respondents mechanically ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV cancelled the applicant's candidature vide the impugned order dated 04.11.2024, giving rise to the present Original Application.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law, Standing Order No. HRD/12/2022, and settled judicial precedents governing recruitment to a disciplined force like Delhi Police. The candidature of the applicant was examined objectively after issuance of a Show Cause Notice and due consideration of his reply by the duly constituted Screening Committee. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was found involved in FIR No. 42/2020 registered at PS Ramkola, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of the IPC, and the said involvement was duly examined by the Screening Committee while assessing his suitability for appointment. Learned counsel added that appointment to a law enforcing agency demands a higher standard of integrity and suitability considering the nature of duties involving maintenance of law and order, handling of arms and ammunition, and protection of life and property of the public. The Screening Committee, while assessing the suitability of the applicant, took into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV overall antecedents of the applicant. The acquittal in the criminal case was not a clean acquittal but one based on benefit of doubt, as the prime prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and therefore the applicant cannot claim an automatic right to appointment.
3.2. Learned counsel argued that it is a settled position of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Mehar Singh (CA No. 4842/2013), State of M.P. & Ors. v. Parvez Khan (CA No. 10613/2014) and Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. (CA No. 67/2018), that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not entitle a provisionally selected candidate to appointment in a sensitive post like police service. The employer has the right to independently assess the suitability of the candidate on the basis of antecedents and overall conduct. In the present case, the Screening Committee found the applicant's reply to the Show Cause Notice not convincing and observed that the nature of allegations reflected a propensity to violence, rendering him unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force. It is denied that the respondents have acted arbitrarily, whimsically, or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1. We are of the considered opinion that mere acquittal in the criminal case involving the applicant does not, by itself, confer upon him an automatic or indefeasible right to be declared fit for appointment to the post in question.
5.2. At the same time, it is incumbent upon the respondents to exercise their discretion in a fair, judicious, and reasonable manner, after duly considering all relevant facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the requirements and sensitivity of the post in question.
5.3. Upon a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, for the effective adjudication of the present matter, it is necessary to examine the same in the light of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 issued by the Delhi Police. The relevant extract of the said Standing Order is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:
"3. IN CASE OF DISCLOSURE OF INVOLVEMENT/ARREST/ ACQUITTAL/DISCHARGE ETC. IN CRIMINAL CASE (A) If a candidate had disclosed his/her acquittal/discharge/conviction etc. in criminal case(s), complaint case(s) etc. in the Attestation form, the Appointing Authority after obtaining the information of appeal/revision against the acquittal/discharge etc. shall issue show cause notice for the cancellation of his/her candidature before final decision in the matter.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV (B) On receipt of candidate's reply, complete case may be sent to PHQ to assess the suitability for appointment in Delhi Police by the Screening Committee. From the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mehar Singh, Parvez Khan and Pradeep Kumar, it is clear that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the provisionally selected candidate for appointment to the post. The Screening Committee will still have the opportunity to consider antecedents and examine whether he/she is suitable for appointment to the post in Delhi Police. The Screening Committee must also be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must examine the candidate with utmost care.
i) Even after due opportunity, the candidate still fails to enclose/provide the certified/photocopies of the record/investigation and trial alongwith reply to the show cause notice, then an adverse inference will be drawn against him/her. However, in such a case the Department shall make all efforts to obtain the relevant documents from the authorities concerned and then the matter should be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendation.
ii) The recommendation of the Screening Committee should contain the view of the Committee on:-
a) The nature and extent of involvement of the candidate in the criminal case.
b) Whether he/she is acquitted on compromise/benefit of doubt/witnesses turning hostile or honorably. In cases where acquittal was out of compromise or benefit of doubt, the Screening Committee shall offer reasoned and speaking comments.
c) Nature and gravity of the charge etc. Such comment of the Screening Committee would not amount to its sitting on the judgment like a trial court, but would only amount to assessment of the suitability of a candidate involved in a criminal case for appointment in Delhi Police.
iii) The final decision on the show cause notice shall be passed as per the recommendations of the Screening Committee. If the Committee does not recommend the case, show cause notice may be confirmed and candidature may be cancelled by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The complete dossiers of such candidate must be kept in record.
iv) In case of recommendations for joining, show cause notice may be vacated and candidate may be allowed to join Delhi Police after fulfillment of other essential conditions.
Reference to this effect must be indicated in the Letter of "Offer of Appointment" as well as Character-Roll and all ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV relevant documents/papers shall be kept with the Fauzi- Missal.
(C) In case, any appeal/revision etc. against the acquittal/conviction/discharge etc. is pending, then the Screening Committee will decide upon the candidature based on the nature of criminal case. If the case is of trivial nature, then in view of the judgment in Avtar Singh versus Union of India, Supreme Court, 2016, the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, after ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case.
If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
(D) In case when facts have been truthfully declared in Character Verification/Attestation Form regarding pendency/involvement in criminal case(s), complaint case(s), preventive proceedings etc. of trivial nature or otherwise, the matter will be referred to Screening Committee after obtaining the reply of the individual to the show cause notice.
If the case is of trivial nature, then in view of the judgment in Avtar Singh versus Union of India, Supreme Court, 2016, the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, after ascertaining the suitability of the candidate, may recommend appointment of the candidate, subject to decision of such case.
If the case is not of trivial nature then the suitability of the candidate/candidature would be decided by the Screening Committee, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
(E) In cases where the candidate's name has been mentioned in the Column No. 12 i.e. accused person not charge sheeted, then also the matter will be submitted before the Screening Committee for its recommendations. (F) The details of criminal cases which involve moral turpitude, serious/heinous and gender crime are annexed as Annexure 'A'.
(G) Minor offences, minor traffic rule violations and accident cases [not applicable for candidates provisionally selected as Constable (Driver)], shall not be considered as a bar for recruitment in Delhi Police in view of various CAT/court judgments.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV (H) If any candidate is released on probation by extending the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 after holding him guilty, his/her case will be examined by the Screening Committee to assess his/her suitability for appointment in Delhi Police taking into consideration his/her role, gravity of offence and trial court order etc. as per procedure given above.
(I) If a candidate was involved in a criminal case, which was withdrawn by the State Government, he/she will generally be considered fit for government service, unless there are other extenuating circumstances which shall be considered by the Screening Committee."
...
Annexure 'A' SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE & OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS CONSIDERING SERIOUS OFFENCES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
1. Indian Penal Code chapter-5(A) Criminal conspiracy, To commit heinous offences Section-120B.
2. Indian penal code chapter-6 Offences against the State Section-121 to 130.
3. Indian penal code chapter-7 Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air force Section-131 to 134.
4. Indian penal code chapter-8 Offences against Tranquility Section-143-149, 153-A & B.
5. Indian penal code chapter-11 False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice Sections-193 to 216-A.
6. Indian penal code chapter-12 Offences relating to Coin and Government Stamps Sections-231 to 263-A.
7. Indian penal code chapter-14 Offences relating to Decency & Moral Sections-292 to 294-A.
8. Indian penal code chapter-15 Offences relating to Religion Sections-295 to 297.
9. Indian penal code chapter-16 Offences Affecting the Human Body ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV Sections-302 to 304, 304-B, 305, 306, 307, 308, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331,332, 333, 335, 347, 348, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 354-D,363 to 373, 376 to 376-A, 376- B, 376-C, 376-D, 376-E,377.
10. Indian penal code chapter-17 Offences against PropertySections-379 to 462.
11. Indian penal code chapter-18 Offences relating to Documents and to Property Marks Sections-465 to 489.
12. Indian penal code chapter-20-A Offences relating to MarriageSections-498-A. In cases relating to marriage i.e. 498-A/406 IPC and dowry prohibition act, the candidate may be debarred if he/she is main accused and not collateral accused. However, if he/she has been committed with 498A IPC then he/she may be debarred.
OFFENCES UNDER STATE ENACTED ACTS/SPECIAL ACTS
1. N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Sections-25, 27 of Arms Act-1959
3. Section-7A of Gambling Act.
4. Section 39, 39-A of Indian Electricity Act.
5. Offences under Factories Act.
6. Offences under Food Adulteration Act.
7. Offences under Official Secret Act-1923.
8. Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.
10. Offences regarding Terrorist activities.
11. Explosives Act.
12. Offences under ITP and MCOCA.
13. Offences under POCSO Act.
14. All offences prescribing conviction of minimum 3 years and above.
15. Such cases which are registered for abetment and conspiracy to commit above mentioned offences. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV
16. Any criminal cases made under any of the Acts which are concerned with security and integrity of the country, terrorist and disruptive activities, acts against the state insurgency etc.
17.Preventive detention under the National Security Act/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation and the same is confirmed by the Reviewing Authority. Note: All special or local Acts where there is a provision of enhanced punishment for subsequent offences. Above list is not exhaustive, Screening Committee shall consider any other cases/provision in any other law which may be relevant to the facts."
5.4. Applying the aforesaid Standing Order to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the FIR was registered against the applicant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 323 and 504 IPC. Out of the said offences, Section 325 IPC squarely finds mention in Annexure 'A' appended to Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022, under Indian Penal Code Chapter-16: Offences Affecting the Human Body. 5.4.1. The offence under Section 325 IPC thus falls within the ambit of offences involving moral turpitude and serious nature as enumerated under Clause (F) read with Annexure 'A' of Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022. Therefore, the candidature of the applicant was required to be subjected to heightened scrutiny by the Screening Committee. 5.4.2. It is also pertinent to note that there is no allegation of mala fide or biased approach adopted by the respondents in the decision-making process. Further, there is no allegation of any procedural lapse on the part of the Screening Committee ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV in conducting the suitability assessment in accordance with the prescribed Standing Order.
5.5. Although the applicant was acquitted in the criminal case by extending the benefit of doubt on account of prosecution witnesses turning hostile, such acquittal cannot be equated with an honorable acquittal. The Standing Order itself recognizes that acquittal on benefit of doubt does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, particularly where the offence involved is of a serious nature enumerated in Annexure 'A'.
5.6. In such circumstances, the Screening Committee was well within its jurisdiction to independently assess the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner of acquittal, and the overall antecedents of the applicant. The Committee, after due consideration, found the applicant unsuitable for appointment in a disciplined force like Delhi Police, and such assessment cannot be said to be arbitrary or mechanical. 5.7 In Avtar Singh vs. UOI (2016) 8 SCC 471, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 38.4.3 observed as under :
"38.4.3 -If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee."
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV 5.8 In State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Yadav, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case where, in the year 2015, a criminal case had been registered against the respondent for offences under Sections 341 and 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 11(D)/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The allegations were that the respondent, along with co- accused, had wrongfully restrained a minor girl and persistently stalked her with the intent to outrage her modesty. During the course of trial, the prosecutrix turned hostile and a compromise was arrived at between the parties. While the offence under Section 341 IPC was compounded, the trial continued in respect of the non-compoundable offences; however, owing to the hostility of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Section 354(D) IPC and Sections 11(D)/12 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, in 2016, the respondent was provisionally selected for the post of Constable after clearing the recruitment examination conducted by the State Government, and he duly disclosed his involvement in the said criminal case in the verification form. Upon verification of his antecedents, the Superintendent of Police found him unsuitable for appointment. Upholding the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV to appointment, particularly in a disciplined force. The Court observed that the State had judiciously exercised its discretion after considering all relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent and that even a single criminal case, wherein the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt, could render a candidate unsuitable for appointment as a Constable. It was further held that such a decision was neither arbitrary nor tainted by mala fides and, therefore, did not warrant interference by the High Court. 5.9 In paragraph 25 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manish Saini v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(C) 11856/2022, decided on 04.11.2024, the Hon'ble Court observed as under :
"The litmus test that seems to emerge, from a reading of the above authorities, is the basis of the acquittal of the candidate in the criminal case. In the case of candidates seeking entry into Police services, or other services dealing with law and order and security, one cannot really distinguish between offence and offence on the basis of "severity". All offences which involve moral turpitude, or criminal acts or intimidation, must fall under the same umbrella."
5.10 In Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20860 of 2019), decided on 26.09.2022, the Apex Court observed as under:
67. Thus, this Court took the view that although employment opportunity is a scarce commodity in the present times being circumscribed within a limited vacancies yet by itself may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of a candidate may ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 15 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV raise any question regarding his suitability, irrespective of eligibility. However, at the same time, this Court observed that there should not be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude to deny appointment in a government service simplicitor which would depend on the facts of each case. The judicial philosophy flowing through the mind of the judges is that every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life for self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, may not always constitute justice. It would all depend on the fact situation of the given case.
68. The only reason to refer to and look into the various decisions rendered by this Court as above over a period of time is that the principles of law laid therein governing the subject are bit inconsistent. Even after, the larger Bench decision in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) different courts have enunciated different principles.
69. In such circumstances, we undertook some exercise to shortlist the broad principles of law which should be made applicable to the litigations of the present nature. The principles are as follows:
a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials-more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]
b) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in acriminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.
c) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.
d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders'conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.
e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged, acted mala fide.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 16 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV
f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority? g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable? "
5.11 We also draw reference to paragraphs 26 to 30 of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4960 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 13285 of 2014), decided on 25.08.2021 wherein it was observed as under:
"26. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment. This was emphasized by this court, in M.V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission(2008) 2 SCC 119 held as follows:
"21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection."
27. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v Dr. B.S. Mahajan(1990) 1 SCC 305 ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 17 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV this court held that "12. ... it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candi- dates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. ... in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selec- tion so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
28. Again, in Union Public Service Commission v. M. Sathiya Priya(2018) 15 SCC 796 it was reiterated that "The question as to how the categories are assessed in light of the relevant records and as to what norms apply in making the assessment, is exclusively to be determined by the Selection Committee. Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is not open for the courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body i.e. the Selection Committee."
29. Public service - like any other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides.
30. The High Court's approach, evident from its observations about the youth and age of the candidates, appears to hint at the general acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or misdemeanour. The impugned order indicates a broad view, that such misdemeanour should not be taken ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.01.16 11:42:50 NI +05'30' 18 Item No. 81 O.A. No. 4939/2024 Court No. IV seriously, given the age of the youth and the rural setting. This court is of opinion that such generalizations, leading to condonation of the offender's conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided. Certain types of offences, like molestation of women, or trespass and beating up, assault, causing hurt or grievous hurt, (with or without use of weapons), of victims, in rural settings, can also be indicative of caste or hierarchy-based behaviour. Each case is to be scrutinized by the concerned public employer, through its designated officials- more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society's security." 5.12 It is well settled that this Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the decision of the Screening Committee unless the same is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or violative of statutory provisions. In the present case, the decision has been taken strictly in accordance with Standing Order No. HRD 12/2022 and settled law.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the foregoing analysis, the present O.A. is dismissed.
6.2. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/as/
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.01.16
11:42:50
NI +05'30'