LexRAVINDRA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 722 : 2024 INSC 131 Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012) 22 February 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration There was a non-disclosure of a criminal case (in which the candidate was acquitted) in the verification form of the employment. The State cancelled the selection of the appellant. Was the State justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant. Headnotes Service Law – Recruitment – Selection – Non-disclosure of a criminal case in verification – Appellant applied for the post of constable – After submitting application, he was embroiled in a criminal case – He cleared exam – In the criminal case, appellant was acquitted – After being selected, the appellant submitted affidavit that no criminal case was ever registered against him – His selection was cancelled vide letter dated 12.04.2005 as appellant had concealed the offence and filed false affidavit: Held: On the date of the application, there was no criminal case pending and there was no suppression in the application form – The verification documents after noticing the criminal case and the subsequent acquittal stated that his character was good, that no complaints were found against him and that his general reputation was good – The SHO, who forwarded the report to the Superintendent of Police after reiterating the contents of the report observed that appellant was acquitted and no appeal was filed – The SHO certified the character of the candidate as excellent and that he was eligible to do Government Service under the State Government – The Superintendent of Police, in his letter to the Commandant, endorsed the report and reiterated that the character of the candidate was excellent – In the instant case, the Appointing Authority has mechanically held selection as irregular and illegal because the appellant had furnished an affidavit with incorrect facts – On applying the broad principles set out in para 93.7 of Satish [2024] 2 S.C.R. 723 Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P. & ORS. Chandra Yadav, the order of cancellation dated 12.04.2005 is neither fair nor reasonable – Clause 9 (i.e. if any fact is concealed in the affidavit by the candidate, his candidature is liable for cancellation) of the recruitment notification has to be read in the context of the law laid down in the cases of the Supreme Court – Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities – Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide – Thus, the order dated 12.04.2005 is quashed and set aside – The respondents are directed to appoint the appellant in service on the post of Constable. [Paras 29 and 30] Case Law Cited Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, [2011] 3 SCR 964 : (2011) 4 SCC 644; Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India and Another, [2022] 7 SCR 928 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 532; Mohammed Imran vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 696; Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, [2022] 10 SCR 537 : (2023) 7 SCC 530 – relied on. Director General of Police, Tamilnadu, Mylapore vs. J. Raghunees, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1379 – distinguished. Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, [2016] 7 SCR 445 : (2016) 8 SCC 471 – referred to. Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others, [2011] 10 SCR 506 : (2011) 14 SCC 709; Morris v. Crown Office, (1970) 2 QB 114 – referred to. List of Keywords Service Law; Recruitment; Selection; Employment; Non-disclosure of a crimal case; Verification in employment; Holistic view based on objective criteria. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5902 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in SA No. 896 of 2005 724 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties P. Choudhury, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Ankit Choudhury, R. K. Singh, Nivedit Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Garima Prashad, A.A.G., Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K.V. Viswanathan, J. 1. The vexed question is back again. Is it a hard and fast and a cut and dried r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.