Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deviram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2237 of 2025
DEVIRAM YADAV
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
{Delivered on 6th the Day of March, 2026} Per: Justice Anand Pathak
1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant/petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 19-06-2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8227 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to the as "the petitioner") has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the respondents in the year 2013, petitioner applied for the post of Constable and Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in the Police Department. He appeared in the written and physical examinations and declared as select candidate for both the posts. In Character Verification form petitioner disclosed only 2 one case registered at crime No.173/2008 for offence under Sections 294, 323, 324, 341, 506-B, 34 of IPC but not disclosed about criminal case registered at crime No.812/2008 for offence under Sections 294, 325, 452, 506-B & 34 of IPC. On the basis of non disclosure of information in relation to registration of case against him at crime No.812/2008, the screening committee rejected the candidature of petitioner and not found suitable for both the posts. Thereafter, petitioner preferred writ petition No.3093/2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 12-09-2018 directing the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for the post of constable. The screening committee found the petitioner suitable for the post of constable and thereafter vide order dated 13-12-2015 he was appointed on the post of Constable and presently he is working on the said post.
3. Assailing the right for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, petitioner preferred writ petition bearing No.7559/2016 which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider his case, but the screening committee did not find him suitable for the post of Sub Inspector /Platoon Commander vide order dated 30-05-2018. Said order was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No.17637/2018 which was dismissed vide order dated 07-08-2018 and thereafter Writ Appeal No.220/2019 was preferred which was withdrawn by him. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a representation to the respondents and against rejection of his representation, he again preferred writ petition No.9211/2019 which was again disposed of for consideration. Thereafter, again his case was rejected vide order dated 21-10-2019. Petitioner again challenged the said order through writ petition No.23922/2019 which was also 3 disposed of vide order dated 10-03-2021. In compliance of this order, matter was again reconsidered by the screening committee and again found the petitioner unsuitable for the post of Sub Inspector/ Platoon Commander vide order dated 06-08-2021 and the said order was served upon the petitioner by the authority vide order dated 07-08-2021. Petitioner again challenged the said order before learned Writ Court which was dismissed therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the Screening Committee did not consider the material aspects of the matter and rejected the character verification of the petitioner while the fact remains with the same criminal cases, he has been found suitable for the post of Constable. Petitioner was given clean acquittal for offence under Section 452 of IPC. None of the authority has considered the case of petitioner in correct perspective.
5. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee failed to consider the nature of offence and extent of involvement of petitioner into it. In none of the cases, petitioner was the main/prime accused and he was only auxiliary/co-accused. The genesis of crime was not seen by the respondents and in a very cursory manner declared the petitioner unfit for the services of police department. The offences registered against the petitioner were treated to be of heinous in nature while the case registered against the petitioner was of simple nature and none of the witness supported the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that the Screening Committee did not consider each and every aspects of the matter and the evidence surfaced on record and committed grave error in rejecting 4 the candidature of petitioner on the basis of registration of criminal cases.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 and submits that the said judgment talks about the objective consideration and once no objective consideration is shown by the departmental authority then it is for the Constitutional Court to invoke its jurisdiction for judicial review. He also relied upon the judgments of Division Bench passed in W.A.No.1954/2019 (Devendra Singh Gurjar Vs. State of M.P. and Others) dated 01-05-2020 as well as in W.A.No.55/2023 (Monu Singh Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) dated 24-07-2024 wherein the issue in relation to failure of character verification has been dealt with and the Court directed the respondents to consider the case of appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and submits that the case registered against the petitioner involves element of Moral Turpitude and his entitlement or dis-entitlement for induction in the government service, will be subject to the nature of offence of the case. It is further contended that mere acquittal from serious charge would not confer any right to the petitioner as it is the prerogative of the employer who would check the suitability of the candidate for the job. It is further submitted that Crime No.812/2008 was not disclosed by the petitioner. Thus, it was a case of suppression of fact. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
59. This is a case where appellant/petitioner is seeking the appointment on the post of Sub Inspector but due to involvement in criminal case, his candidature for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander is being rejected by screening committee time and again.
10. Learned Writ Court after considering the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 rejected the contention of petitioner and from discussion it appears, rightly so.
11. Appointment process was of year 2013. Although petitioner was given appointment on the post of Police Constable around 2015 but writ petition was dismissed regarding appointment to the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander vide order dated 07-08-2018 passed in writ petition No.17637/2018. Against that order, petitioner preferred writ appeal No.220/2019 but petitioner withdrew that appeal on 13-02-2019 and sought liberty to avail departmental remedy if available in law. Considering the same, Division Bench disposed of writ appeal while giving liberty to avail departmental remedy subject to its availability. It appears that there was no remedy as such available.
12. Learned Writ Court in the impugned order observed this aspect and found that no departmental remedy was available. There was no provision of appeal as such.
13. Be that as it may.
14. Even the matter is seen from the vantage point of law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Mehar Singh (supra) and Parvez Khan (supra) and law propounded in Avtar Singh (supra), it is 6 clear that screening committee/employer is the best person to consider the same. Here, after due consideration, matter is decided by the committee, that too time and again. Different orders in different writ petitions and writ appeal indicate that due consideration has been made. Learned Writ Court rightly came to the conclusion that it is the discretion of the employer and same cannot be interfered, when repeatedly employer took the consistent view.
15. One more aspect deserves consideration is that post of constable and its responsibility defers from the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander where a person has to give direction to the subordinates. He comes in executive position, therefore, his character is required to be impeccable and this aspect is also considered by learned Writ Court and thereafter passed the order impugned. In the case of Constable, no executive decision is required to be taken and usually one has to follow the command. However, in case of Sub Inspector certain executive decisions and at times certain statutory powers are to be exercised in respect of Crime Investigation and Law & Order Maintenance. Therefore, the person is to be upright and clean. Higher the responsibility, stricter the parameters of antecedents.
16. Although at times in certain region specially in State of Madhya Pradesh, there is tendency of falsely implicating the persons while registering FIR. Application of any law is always meant for the prevailing time, social conditions and mores as well as surroundings in which it operates. In the jurisdiction of this Court, many cases are registered at the instance of complainant with overtone of false implication or over implication. Many a times, a person who is 7 serving in a government job is implicated as an accused and in many cases, a candidate preparing for government job or an aspirant, is also roped in as an accused so as to frustrate his future prospects. The Police Authorities which operate at ground level, are well versed with the ground reality and decipher each and every case with precaution and care because future prospects of a candidate to enter into government job ought not lie at the mercy of the complainant who may lodge false complaint at any time against any person.
However in given case, scope of interference is limited. As such appellant earlier withdrew Writ Appeal No.220/2019 vide order dated 13-02-2019 to avail departmental remedy and incidentally no such departmental remedy exist because Screening Committee already given its verdict. Therefore, on this point also, case of appellant falters. Even otherwise, it is a case of non- disclosure of criminal record and post - Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander sought, is of executive nature. Therefore, this post requires higher level of commitment and integrity.
17. Question of appeal is also dealt by learned Writ Court and rightly so. After 13 years petitioner/appellant cannot be permitted to be relegated back to the employer for reconsideration when time and again consideration is taken by the employer.
18. The reliance which is placed by the petitioner over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) is of no help as in the said case, the Apex Court clearly held that the employer should assess the employee's suitability for the post concerned.
19. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, rival submission and the discussion surfaced in the impugned order, it 8 appears that no case for interference is made out. Writ Court discussed the issue in detail. Petitioner failed to establish his case for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
20. Appeal stands dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK) (ANIL VERMA) Anil* JUDGE JUDGE ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2026.03.06 18:01:27 +05'30'