Court holds mere inclusion in waiting list and partial FIR disclosure do not guarantee appointment; mandates comprehensive verification and reasoned order within 60 days
In a significant judgment delivered on October 6, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized the need for thorough and objective scrutiny of criminal antecedents before appointing candidates to the police force. The ruling arose from a writ petition filed by Narendra Pal Barman, who sought appointment as a Constable (GD) under the Scheduled Caste category.
The petitioner's name was placed at serial number one in the waiting list after successfully clearing the physical efficiency test and written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Police. During the subsequent stage, the petitioner truthfully disclosed two pending FIRs in his attestation form. These FIRs involved serious offences, including charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 341, 353, 427, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Despite this disclosure, the police authorities delayed issuing an appointment order.
The State, however, countered that the petitioner had failed to disclose eight additional criminal cases pending against him, totaling ten FIRs. The State argued that such non-disclosure and the gravity of the offences, notably under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), materially impacted his suitability for appointment. The authorities emphasized that mere inclusion in the waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when criminal antecedents remain in dispute.
Drawing from precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) and the Rajasthan High Court's decision in Ajhar Mehar v. Union of India (2020), the Court reiterated that truthful disclosure of criminal cases by a candidate does not automatically entitle him to appointment. Likewise, the existence of pending criminal cases cannot be treated as an automatic disqualification in every case. Instead, the competent authority must evaluate the nature and gravity of allegations, the stage and outcome of proceedings, the manner of disclosure, and the overall character and antecedents of the candidate before making an appointment decision.
Highlighting the disciplined nature of the police force, the Court underscored the necessity for high integrity, probity, and discipline among its members. The judgment clarified that even acquittal or discharge in criminal cases does not guarantee the candidate's impeccable character and that suitability must be assessed independently.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the competent authority to conduct a thorough verification of the petitioner's complete criminal antecedents, including both the disclosed and undisclosed cases. The authority was instructed to pass a reasoned and speaking order considering all relevant factors within 60 days of the judgment. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit any supporting documents during this process.
Justice Guru refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or ultimate suitability of the petitioner, leaving such determination to the competent screening committee in accordance with applicable rules and facts.
This ruling clarifies the legal position that candidates for disciplined forces like police cannot claim automatic appointment solely based on their position in a waiting list or partial disclosure of criminal antecedents. It affirms the employer's right to objectively assess character and fitness to uphold the integrity of the police service.
Bottom Line:
Appointment to Police Force - Mere inclusion of candidate's name in waiting list and disclosure of some pending criminal cases do not confer an indefeasible right to appointment - Competent authority must verify complete criminal antecedents and assess suitability objectively keeping in view nature of post, gravity of allegations, manner of disclosure and overall character of candidate.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 307, 332, 341, 353, 427, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Narendra Pal Barman v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992105
