COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus RAJ KUMAR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 4 · Decided: 25-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
v.
RAJ KUMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 4960 of 2021)
AUGUST 25, 2021
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law – Recruitment – Public employment – Delhi
Police – Post of constable – Standing Order No.398/2010 Policy
for deciding cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi
Police involved in criminal cases (facing trial or acquitted) –
Selection authority / Screening Committee rejected candidature of
respondents candidates as they had faced criminal proceedings –
CAT allowed the applications of respondents – Writ petitions –
Direction of High Court that the respondents be considered for
appointment – Held: Not justified – Reading of the applicable
Standing Order made it clear that in relation to certain offences,
acquittal or exoneration of an accused candidate, per se would
not entitle her or him to consideration – Public service – Like any
other, pre-supposes that the state employer has an element of
latitude or choice on who should enter its service – Norms, based
on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification,
experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc.
– Judicial review is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair
and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner
– However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice
of the public employer, is greatest, as long as the process of
decision making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides
– High Court’s approach appears to hint at the general
acceptability of behaviour which involves petty crime or
misdemeanor – Such generalizations, leading to condonation of
the offender’s conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and
should be avoided – Each case is to be scrutinized by the
concerned public employer, through its designated officials – More
so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under
a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability
to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society’s security.
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 4
4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
Service Law – Public employment – Recruitment /
Appointment – Judicial Review – Scope – Held: Courts exercising
judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate
for any public office or post – Absent evidence of malice or
mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer,
an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable
renders the courts’ decision suspect to the charge of trespass into
executive power of determining suitability of an individual for
appointment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Standing order No.398/2010 policy for deciding
cases of candidates provisionally selected in Delhi Police
involved in criminal cases (facing trial or acquitted) is relevant
for an appropriate decision in this case. Annexure A to the policy
refers to offences involving moral turpitude. Clause 3 of the
Standing Order, which refers to the Screening Committee,
comprises of senior police officers. This committee assesses
candidates’ (previously implicated for an offence, but against
whom charges are terminated, for any reason), suitability for
appointment. Clause 6 prescribes that candidates who faced
charges involving serious offences or offences involving moral
turpitude and who are later acquitted giving benefit of doubt or
because the witnesses turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by
the accused person shall not generally be considered suitable
for government service. Each of such cases is to be considered
by the Screening Committee manned by senior officers. It is
evident from a reading of the applicable Standing Order along
with Annexure-A that in relation to certain offences, acquittal or
exoneration of an accused candidate, per se would not entitle
her or him to consideration. [Paras 12, 13][11-H; 14-D-G]
2. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess
the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent
evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or
illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a
candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts’ decision
suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of
determining suitability of an individual for appointment. [Para 26]
[20-D-E]
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v. RAJ KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
3. Public service – lik

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.