In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the rejection of a constable candidate, Ashish Kumar Rajbhar, who was denied appointment by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, for failing to disclose a minor criminal case registered against him. The Court held that mere non-disclosure of a criminal case trivial in nature does not automatically disqualify a candidate if the omission does not indicate intentional deceit or serious unsuitability for the post.
Case Background
The petitioner, Ashish Kumar Rajbhar, selected in the 2015 Uttar Pradesh Police recruitment drive, was asked to submit an affidavit declaring any pending or registered criminal cases. Initially, he stated there were none. However, Rajbhar later submitted a second affidavit disclosing Criminal Case No. 0170 of 2017, which involved charges under Sections 147, 323, 452, and 325 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Notably, he was not named as an accused in the charge sheet filed and was unaware of the case at the time of his first affidavit submission. Subsequently, the District Magistrate recommended his appointment, deeming him suitable for the position based on his background and lack of conviction or charge.
Despite the recommendation, the Superintendent of Police in Ballia rejected Rajbhar’s application, citing “material suppression” of information as grounds for disqualification. This led Rajbhar to file the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the decision.
Legal Issues Raised
The central legal question was whether an applicant could be denied a police appointment due solely to non-disclosure of a criminal case, particularly when the candidate was neither accused in the charge sheet nor put on trial. The petitioner’s counsel argued that this non-disclosure did not constitute active misrepresentation or deceit, and was therefore an insufficient basis for disqualification. The Court was asked to consider:
1. Materiality of Suppressed Information: Whether the non-disclosed information had a bearing on the petitioner’s suitability for the post.
2. Nature of the Offense and Intention to Conceal: Whether non-disclosure of the minor criminal charge indicated intent to deceive.
3. Role of the District Magistrate’s Report: If the positive endorsement by the District Magistrate sufficed to counter the effect of the non-disclosure.
Court Observations and Judgment
Presiding Judge Justice Salil Kumar Rai ruled in favour of Rajbhar, emphasizing that “broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification would be unjust and arbitrary” and would ignore the realities of the candidate’s socio-economic background and the nature of the alleged offense. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s non-disclosure was not a deliberate attempt to deceive, and the absence of a criminal conviction or inclusion in the charge sheet weighed in his favor.
The Court referenced landmark rulings, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., which underscore the necessity for authorities to distinguish between serious and trivial non-disclosures and to refrain from arbitrary disqualifications. Judge Rai observed that:
“The yardstick to be applied must depend upon the nature of the post…It would be arbitrary and unreasonable to disqualify a candidate merely for non-disclosure of a trivial matter which does not render him unfit for the position in question.”
The Court further critiqued the Superintendent of Police’s decision for ignoring the District Magistrate’s positive report, which recommended Rajbhar’s fitness for the role. The ruling highlighted that the criminal case, involving minor charges without any further trial, did not reflect poorly on Rajbhar’s character or suitability.
Relief Granted
Setting aside the March 2019 rejection order, the Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Police Department and other relevant state authorities to issue Rajbhar an appointment letter by December 15, 2024. His service benefits, including pay and seniority, will be applicable from his joining date, per the Court’s instructions.
Counsel Representation
Advocate Siddharth Khare represented Rajbhar, arguing that the failure to disclose was not an intentional omission and should not result in disqualification. The respondent’s counsel, the Standing Counsel for the State, contended that the omission amounted to material suppression, which justified the disqualification.
