Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John held that denial of public employment on the basis of a candidate’s past criminal record must be analysed in context, particularly where the nature of the post does not involve public interface or discretion. The Court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate employment offer, set aside the government’s order denying appointment, and directed that the candidate be appointed within four weeks. The Court held that character assessments must account for social background and not be reduced to a rigid application of uniform standards.

The petitioner, a 36-year-old individual belonging to the Ezhava community, applied for compassionate employment following the death of his mother, who was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department. After his mother passed away on 03.11.2017, he was offered a position as a Police Constable (Driver) under the compassionate employment scheme. His eligibility for compassionate appointment was undisputed.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Secretly Recorded Calls Between Spouses Are Admissible In Divorce Cases | Section 122 Evidence Act Does Not Bar Disclosure In Matrimonial Suits | Right To Fair Trial Outweighs Spousal Privacy Objection

The petitioner’s appointment was, however, denied on the ground of his involvement in multiple criminal cases. The government identified two primary grounds for rejection: (i) involvement in criminal offences, and (ii) non-disclosure of such involvement in the verification roll.

The petitioner had a history of criminal cases between 2012 and 2019. In one case under Section 15(C) of the Abkari Act, he paid a fine of ₹2,500. In another case under Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, involving inappropriate conduct at a bus stand, he was sentenced to one day’s imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000. Three subsequent cases involving sections of the IPC resulted in acquittals. Additionally, a domestic violence case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, ended in a compromise.

In the verification roll submitted on 22.02.2022, the petitioner failed to disclose his involvement in the said cases. Clause 19 of the attestation form, which sought information on criminal history, was printed only in English, unlike the other clauses which were bilingual.

The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the government’s rejection. Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution and approached the High Court.

The Court began by reflecting on the petitioner’s life circumstances:

“He never thought that he would have a chance to improve until the moment came in the form of an opportunity that knocked at his door, consequent upon the death of his beloved mother... But it was not so. The Law became a barrier for him.”

The Court recognised that the petitioner had committed offences and failed to disclose them, but questioned whether these lapses should result in permanent exclusion from public service.

In addressing the legal framework, the Court referred to Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KS&SSR), and Section 86 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, both of which require that a candidate's character and antecedents be satisfactory for public employment. The Court explained that while acquittal in criminal cases is relevant, only an “honourable acquittal” — one that fully exonerates the accused — would favourably influence a character assessment.

Quoting precedent, the Court stated: “The expression ‘honourable acquittal’ is one which is unknown to courts of justice... It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the Appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted.” [State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972]

On this basis, the Court clarified: “Acquittal giving benefit of doubt would not automatically lead to reinstatement of candidate unless the rules provide so.”

However, the Bench chose not to apply the “honourable acquittal” or “proximate test” doctrines. Instead, it adopted a “nexus test”, stating: “Under the nexus test, the focus of inquiry is to determine whether there exists a relevant connection between the alleged offence, the imputation upon the individual’s character, and the nature of the post in question.”

Applying this test, the Court found that the position of Police Constable (Driver) did not involve public interface or discretionary authority. The Court noted: “If the public, as a matter of right, has to interact or engage, and an element of discretion is left with the person... it is a matter related to public confidence. If not, the Government can take a chance by giving an opportunity to reform.”

The Court gave weight to the petitioner’s social background, limited education (SSLC), and the role of systemic disadvantage in shaping behaviour. It observed: “Uniform application of rules without regard to the diverse social, cultural and historical context... can result in injustice, particularly, marginalised and backward communities.”

Regarding non-disclosure of criminal involvement, the Court found the attestation clause inadequately worded and only in English. It stated:“It is high time for the Government to incorporate such a change in the questionnaire to include clause 19 in Malayalam language as well.”

Also Read: Tirupati Laddu Case | Andhra Pradesh High Court Says CBI Director Violated Supreme Court Mandate By Appointing Unauthorised Officer To SIT | Orders Free And Fair Probe As Per Reconstituted Panel Approved By SC

The Court held that, considering the petitioner’s educational background, his omission was not material. Citing Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., the Court recorded: “Suppression was not of a material fact; even if the information was disclosed, he could not have been denied public employment.”

The Court concluded that exclusion from service, in this case, would amount to reinforcing marginalisation.

“In conclusion, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Original petition is allowed, setting aside Annexure 13, government order dated 11/04/2022. Consequently, there shall be a direction to appoint him within a period of 4 weeks.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, Kum. Thulasi K. Raj, Smt. Chinnu Maria Antony, Smt. Aparna Narayan Menon

For the Respondents: Senior Government Pleader Shri B. Unnikrishna Kaimal

Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:49236

Case Number: O.P. (KAT) No. 72 of 2025

Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice Johnson John