Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat, Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai, has held that a candidate selected for the post of Unarmed Police Constable cannot be denied appointment merely on the basis of a previously registered criminal case, particularly where the FIR and all consequential proceedings have been quashed by a competent court. The court set aside the order refusing appointment and directed the authorities to reconsider the candidate's case for appointment to the post of Unarmed Constable (Lokrakshak), subject to his suitability and clearance of the medical examination. The matter arose from a challenge brought by a selected candidate who was denied permission to join the police force on account of a criminal case registered against him in 2018, which had since been quashed with the complainant's consent, the allegations being limited to minor physical altercation and verbal abuse.

Also Read: Supreme Court Unsatisfied With FSSAI Compliance Affidavit, Directs Consideration Of Front-Of-Pack Warnings On Sugar, Salt, Saturated Fats In Food

The petitioner contended that the online application form did not contain any column requiring disclosure of pending criminal cases. He further submitted that the FIR was quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 15.06.2023 in a consent quashing petition, prior to the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 refusing him appointment. The State opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner was seeking appointment in the police force, which requires a clean record, and that the decision was taken after seeking guidance from the office of the D.G.P.

The Court observed that “the short question that has arisen for consideration of the Court is whether a person against whom a criminal case is pending, or even if the case is decided in favor of the petitioner by way of acquittal or quashing, whether the department was justified in denying appointment to the petitioner.”

It recorded that “the case of the petitioner was not rejected, nor was the petitioner denied appointment on the ground of any suppression or non-disclosure of a criminal case.”

On the effect of quashing, the Court stated, “What is important is whether, even after an FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR are quashed by a competent Court, the shadow of that FIR would still continue to follow the petitioner.”

After examining the nature of allegations, it noted that “the offence alleged against the petitioner was limited to giving kick and fist blows and abusing the complainant’s mother-in-law.” The Court further observed, “If mere registration of an offence or pendency of a criminal case is treated as a benchmark for denying appointment, it may cause great injustice to a meritorious candidate.”

Referring to discretion of the employer, the Court stated, “mere pendency of a criminal case would, per se, not disqualify any candidate from being appointed.” It further recorded, “The authority is required to consider the case of the petitioner independently and objectively on a case-to-case basis.”

On quashing on merits, the Court observed, “when the FIR against a candidate is quashed by the competent Court on merits, such candidates stand on a different footing for consideration of appointment.”

Considering the petitioner’s case, the Court stated, “as the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the present petitioner have already been quashed, and having regard to the nature of the offence and the role attributed to the petitioner… the respondents committed an error in denying appointment to the petitioner.”

Also Read: Human Rights Commission Cannot Entertain Private Property Disputes: Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Proceedings And Issues Guidelines To Prevent Jurisdictional Overreach

The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Tthe respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner in light of the observations made hereinabove for appointment to the post of Unarmed Constable (Lokrakshak), and he may be appointed if the petitioner is otherwise found suitable for the post and clears the medical examination.” The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Karishma Chauhan for Mr. Shivam H. Chokshi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Kinjal Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader

Case Title: Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: GUJHC:7456

Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 21060 of 2023

Bench: Justice Nirzar S. Desai