SC restores Telangana police constable aspirant’s candidature, slams arbitrary rejection
The Supreme Court restored the candidature of a Telangana police constable aspirant, ruling that authorities acted arbitrarily in rejecting him over a compounded criminal case. The court held that a failed consensual relationship cannot automatically imply moral turpitude or disqualification
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has restored the candidature of a police constable aspirant in Telangana, holding that the state recruitment authorities acted arbitrarily in denying him appointment on the basis of a criminal case arising out of a failed relationship that was subsequently compounded before a Lok Adalat.
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, while allowing an appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi, set aside a Telangana High Court Division Bench judgment which had upheld the cancellation of his provisional selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).
The appellant had disclosed in his application that he was previously booked under Sections 417, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC in a case lodged by a woman who alleged that he had promised to marry her but later married another woman.
The case was subsequently compounded before a Lok Adalat in 2015.
Despite the disclosure, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board cancelled his provisional selection, treating the allegations as involving moral turpitude and concluding that he was unsuitable for appointment in the police force.
In its order, the Justice Misra-led Bench observed that while employers are entitled to assess the suitability of candidates even after acquittal or discharge in criminal cases, such decisions must not be arbitrary.
“The state and its officers cannot act arbitrarily. Therefore, when such a decision is subjected to judicial review, to ensure that the same is not held arbitrary, in our view, it must be demonstrated that, (a) there exists material on record to indicate that an offence involving moral turpitude was indeed committed; and (b) there exists material against the candidate even though he may have succeeded in earning an acquittal or a discharge,” the apex court said.
It recorded that the appellant had made a full and truthful disclosure of the criminal case and that there was no allegation of suppression of facts.
The Supreme Court took exception to the recruitment authorities’ reasoning that the compromise before the Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt.
“The statement that the compromise amounts to admission of guilt is without any basis. Further, the statement that the appellant compromised because he was guilty is completely perverse and defies logic,” the Justice Misra-led Bench observed.
The top court stressed that the allegations stemmed from a relationship between two consenting adults and cautioned authorities against drawing adverse conclusions solely on that basis.
“Authorities would have to be sensitive to the changing times in the context of pre-marital relationships. Such pre-marital relationships are common today. Moreover, physical relationship between two consenting unmarried adults cannot and should not by itself be a ground to draw an adverse impression about the character of the person in that relationship,” it said.
The apex court further observed that not every relationship culminates in marriage, and merely because a relationship failed to result in marriage could not automatically lead to a conclusion that one party had cheated the other.
Holding that there was no material to suggest that the compromise had been obtained through threats or coercion, it said the recruitment authorities had no basis to infer adverse character traits from the case.
“The decision of the Screening Committee to deny appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and was justifiably set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court,” the top court held, restoring the single-judge order directing reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the Telangana High Court Division Bench judgment was set aside.
