The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has quashed an order cancelling the candidature of a police constable aspirant, observing that youthful indiscretions and the pendency of criminal cases where allegations are general in nature should not result in branding a person a criminal for life.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, presiding over Court No. 18, held that the State’s approach toward recruitment involving candidates with minor or settled criminal backgrounds should be “reformative rather than punitive.” The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, to forthwith issue an appointment letter to the petitioner, Akash Singh, subject to the final outcome of his pending trials.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Akash Singh, applied for the post of Constable (Civil Police) following an advertisement issued on December 23, 2023, by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. After passing the written examination held in August 2024 and subsequent document verification, he was directed to appear for a medical examination in April 2025.
During this process, the petitioner truthfully disclosed three criminal cases registered against him in an affidavit dated May 24, 2025. These cases included:
- Case Crime No. 364 of 2021: Sections 352, 504 IPC, and Forest Conservation Act.
- Case Crime No. 13 of 2022: Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, and SC/ST Act.
- Case Crime No. 711 of 2023: Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC.
Despite his selection, the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, issued an order on September 3, 2025, cancelling Singh’s candidature. The cancellation was primarily based on the recommendation of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, citing the pendency of the third case (Case Crime No. 711/2023), which the authorities classified as an offence involving “moral turpitude.”
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Utsav Mishra, argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable because the primary basis for the cancellation—Case Crime No. 711 of 2023—had already been quashed by a Division Bench of the High Court on February 1, 2024, in Smt. Deepa Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others. He contended that the authorities failed to consider that this case was no longer in existence at the time the cancellation order was passed.
Regarding the other two cases, the counsel submitted that they involved general allegations and carried maximum sentences of three and seven years, respectively. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) to assert that truthful disclosure of pending cases should not automatically disqualify a candidate.
The Standing Counsel for the State opposed the petition, maintaining that Case Crime No. 711 of 2023 involved moral turpitude. The State’s counter-affidavit argued that since the petitioner had not been acquitted by a trial court and the final report was still pending consideration, the cancellation was justified under Government Orders.
Court’s Analysis
The court observed that the petitioner had been completely truthful in his disclosures. It noted that the authorities ignored the fact that the Division Bench had already quashed the most serious case (711/2023), which was commercial in nature and had been settled between the parties.
Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, the court reviewed the guidelines regarding the disclosure of criminal antecedents. The court noted:
“In case when fact has been truthfully declared… regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate.”
The court further referred to State Bank of India vs. P. Soupramaniane (2019) 18 SCC 135, observing that “all cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorised as crimes involving moral turpitude.”
Justice Pawar emphasized that the remaining two cases against the petitioner involved general roles and were yet to be adjudicated. The court highlighted that:
“Youthful indiscretions and minor offences ought not to result in branding a person as a criminal for life and that the approach of the State should be reformative rather than punitive.”
The court also pointed out that the State failed to provide a rebuttal to the petitioner’s claim that six other candidates with pending criminal cases had already been granted appointments.
The Decision
The High Court quashed the cancellation order dated September 3, 2025. It directed the Superintendent of Police, Deoria (Respondent No. 6), to issue the appointment letter to Akash Singh immediately. The court clarified that the appointment would remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal trials in the two remaining cases.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Akash Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 6 Others
- Case No.: WRITA No. 14466 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar
- Date: April 24, 2026
