The Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, has held that a candidate’s truthful disclosure of pending criminal proceedings does not confer an absolute right to claim appointment in the police force, nor can it compel the employer to issue an appointment order. Disposing of a writ petition filed by a candidate placed on the recruitment waiting list for the post of Constable (GD), the Court directed the competent authority to independently verify the candidate’s complete criminal record—including disputed allegations of undisclosed cases—and take a reasoned decision within 60 days on his suitability.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Narendra Pal Barman, applied for the post of Constable (General Duty) for District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara under the Scheduled Caste category pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Chhattisgarh Police. Having cleared the requisite selection stages, including the Physical Efficiency Test and the written examination, his name was placed at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list.
Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued instructions directing waitlisted candidates to participate in further selection formalities and submit necessary documents, including an attestation form and identity proof. In his attestation form, the petitioner disclosed that two First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered against him—Crime No. 431/2022 (involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 341, 353, 427, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code) and Crime No. 223/2023 (under Sections 186, 294, 34, and 506 of the IPC)—and stated that the trials were pending.
When the authorities did not take steps to appoint him despite this disclosure, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his candidature and issue an appointment order.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mateen Siddiqui contended that the petitioner had acted candidly and made an honest disclosure of both pending criminal cases in the verification form. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) and a Single Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ajhar Mehar v. Union of India & Ors., he argued that where the pendency of a criminal case has been truthfully declared, the employer retains the discretion to appoint the candidate subject to the eventual outcome of the trial. He submitted that the respondents’ total inaction in considering his appointment was arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law.
Opposing the petition, Government Advocate Anil S. Pandey, appearing for the State, submitted that material available with the authorities revealed that as many as ten criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, whereas he had declared only two in his attestation form. The State emphasized that serious charges had been levelled against him, including an attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal and Others v. S.K. Nazrul Islam (2011), the State argued that a candidate whose antecedents render him unsuitable cannot claim appointment merely on the basis of selection, and that mere placement on a waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
The Court’s Analysis
Examining the rival submissions in light of the nature of the post, the High Court observed that disclosure does not strip the employer of its authority to assess whether an applicant is fit to join a law enforcement agency. The Court noted:
“At this juncture, it is noteworthy to mention here that in a case where the candidate has made declaration truthfully with regard to registration of FIR and pendency of trial, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.”
Justice Guru observed that a material dispute existed regarding the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, given the State’s assertion that ten cases were pending against him as opposed to the two declared. Setting out the legal principles governing such verifications, the Court held:
“It is no longer in dispute that mere disclosure of a criminal case by a candidate does not, by itself, confer an absolute right upon him to seek appointment. At the same time, pendency of a criminal case cannot, in every case, be treated as an automatic disqualification. The competent authority is required to consider the nature of the allegations, the stage of the criminal proceedings, their outcome, the antecedents of the candidate and other relevant circumstances in accordance with the applicable rules.”
Underlining the special responsibilities placed upon members of a disciplined force, the Court highlighted the necessity of rigorous scrutiny during recruitment:
“It is also well settled that the Police Force is a disciplined force and its members are entrusted with the onerous responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order. While considering the suitability of a candidate for appointment to the Police Force, the employer is entitled to examine the character and antecedents of the candidate in their entirety, having regard to the high degree of discipline, impeccable integrity and probity expected from a person seeking entry into such Force.”
The Court further clarified:
“The fact that a candidate has disclosed the registration of an FIR or that the criminal proceedings are pending cannot, by itself, compel the employer to appoint him. Likewise, acquittal or discharge in a criminal case cannot, in every situation, result in an automatic conclusion that the candidate possesses an impeccable character. The competent authority is required to examine the nature of the allegations, the manner in which the criminal proceedings have culminated, if they have culminated, and the overall antecedents of the candidate.”
Decision of the Court
Refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending criminal cases or the petitioner’s ultimate suitability for appointment, the High Court held that such assessment falls exclusively within the domain of the recruiting authority.
The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority and screening committee to take an independent, objective decision on the petitioner’s claim for appointment. The authority was directed to verify the petitioner’s complete criminal antecedents—both the cases disclosed by him and the additional cases alleged by the State—and evaluate the nature and gravity of the allegations, the present status of the proceedings, the manner of disclosure, and all relevant factors bearing on his character.
The petitioner has been granted liberty to place all relevant documents and supporting material before the authority. The competent authority must consider the record and pass a reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law within an outer limit of 60 days from receiving a copy of the order.
Case Details
Case Title: Narendra Pal Barman v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Case No.: WPS No. 7100 of 2026
Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Date: 06-10-2026
