STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus PARVEZ KHAN

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 01-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 14 S.C.R. 520 
A 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
v. 
PARVEZKHAN 
(Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014) 
B 
DECEMBER 01, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Appointment/Recruitment -
Compassionate 
appointment in police service - Refusal of - By competent 
C authority - On the ground of criminal antecedents of the 
candidate- Writ petition challenging the order on the ground 
that out of the two criminal cases, in one he was acquitted 
(for want of evidence) and in another was discharged on 
account of compounding of offence - Single Judge of High 
0 
Court dismissed the petition, while Division Bench reversed 
the order of Single Judge - On appeal, held: Refusal to recruit 
the candidate by the competent authority was justified- The 
• 
person cannot be presumed fully exonerated on his acquittal 
or discharge - The person who is likely to erode the credibility 
E of police, ought not to enter the police force -
Such 
appointment, on parity, is not permissible since doctrine of 
equality does not apply in such cases - Constitution of India 
-Arl.14. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The Division Bench of the High Court was 
not justified in interfering with the order rejecting the claim 
of the respondent for recruitment to the police service· 
by way of giving him compassionate appointment. A 
candidate, to be recruited to the police service, must be 
G worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost 
rectitude and must have impeccable character and 
integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not. 
fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, 
it cannot be presumed that he was completely 
H exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the 
520 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PARVEZ KHAN 
521 
credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. A 
No doubt the Screening Committee has not been 
constituted, the Superintendent of Police has gone into 
the matter, who is the appointing authority. There is no 
allegation of ma/a tides against the person taking the said 
decision nor the decision is shown to·be perverse or B 
irrational. There is no material to show that the appellant 
was falsely implicated. Basis of impugned judgment was . 
acquittal for want of evidence or discharge based on 
compounding. The plea of parity with two other persons 
who were recruited can also not help the respondent. c 
To such cases the doctrine of equality enshrined in 
Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. 
[Paras 15, 14 and 13][532-E-H; 533-B-D; 534-B-C] 
. Commissioner of Police v. Mehar Singh 2013 (7) 
SCC 685 """' referred to. 
D 
· CASE LAW REFERENCE 
2013 (7) SCC 685 
referred to 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
10613 of2014. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-03-2012 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WritAppeal No. 
262 of 2010. 
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Kr. Lal, Advs. 
~~~~~~. 
F 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., Prashant Shukla, Nikilesh 
Ramachandran,Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
2. This appeal has been preferred againstthe Judgment 
and Order dated 201h March, 2012 of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.262 of 2010. 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
• > •3. The question raised for our consideration is whether 
, the refusal by the competent authority to give compassionate 
appointment in.police:;service on the,ground of.criminal 
antecedents of a candldate who is.acquitted for,want of 
evidence or.who is discharged,from the criminal case on 
B account of compounding can be justified. • 
, . 
1: 
· 4. Sultan Khan was serving with the Madhya Pradesh 
Police. He'died in harness·on 21'' June, 2005. His son, the· 
respondent Parvez Khan; a'l'>"pliea for··compassionate 
'appointment: The competent authority sent his record for 
C pOlice verification.· It was· found that tie was involved in two 
criminal cases.' In one case, he was' prosecuted fot offences 
tinder Sections 323;r324, 325;294 and 506-B/34 of the Indian 
Penal Code· and in;the other under Sections 452, 394 arid 
395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Superintendent of Police 
D held that he was not eligible for appointment in Government 
service and closed his case. - . , 
. 5. 4The respondent challenged the said order by way of 
Writ Petition No.15052 of ZOOS on the ground that in the first 
l f' 
' 
I 
case he was acq
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.