STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1133 · Decided: 26-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
v.
ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR
(Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018)
NOVEMBER 26, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service law: Appointment – Antecedents and suitability of the
candidate – Consideration of – On facts, the respondent participated
in the selection process for posts of subedars, platoon commanders
and inspectors of police – Disclosure made in an affidavit that a
criminal case is pending against him – Within four days compromise
entered into between the parties and application for compounding
of the offences allowed – Thereafter, the respondent was selected
in the written examination, however, after considering his character
verification report, his candidature was rejected – Writ petition
thereagainst allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Said
order upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Even after
the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well
within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of
the candidate – Employer can certainly take into account the job
profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal
was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit
of doubt or as a result of composition – On facts, nothing on record
to suggest that the decision of rejecting the candidature of
respondent was actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other
count – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing
such pendency was filed. Even after the disclosure is made by a
candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider
the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so
considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1133
1133
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal
in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the
ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
[Para 15][1145-B-D]
1.2 There is nothing on record to suggest that the decision
taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature
of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered
on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of
the respondent was absolutely correct and did not call for any
interference. The decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well
as by the Division Bench are set aside. [Para 17][1145-G-H]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v.
Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432;
State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan
(2015) 2 SCC 591; Union Territory, Chandigarh
Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and
another (2018) 1 SCC  797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Avtar
Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
[2016] 7 SCR 445; Mohammed Imran v. State of
Maharashtra and others 2018 (10)  JT 15 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 13 SCR 432
referred to
Para 10
(2015) 2 SCC 591
referred to
Para 10
[2018] 1 SCR 112
referred to
Para 10
[2016] 7 SCR 445
referred to
Para 10
2018 (10) JT 15
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11356
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2015 of the High Court
of  Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 132 of 2015.
Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Siddhartha Dave, (A.C.), Ms. Jantiben AO, Advs. for the
Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal
challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal
No.132 of 2015.
2. In 2012, the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh
invited applications for filling up the posts of Subedars, Platoon
Commanders and Inspectors of Police.  Clause 1.13 of the advertisement
dealt with character verification of the candidates.  True translation of
said clause 1.13 along with Note appended thereto was to the following
effect:
“1.13 Appointment: The character verification shall be carried
out about

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