Supreme Court on police hiring: Why ‘clean chit’ from court may still not be enough to get you job

“In service law jurisprudence, mere involvement of a person in an offence or in a conduct amounting to moral turpitude without anything else may become relevant consideration to judge his fitness to the post and to assess credentials for allowing such a person into the employment,” the court said.

Background

• The dispute arose from the recruitment process for the post of constable (driver) in the Madhya Pradesh Police. Rajkumar Yadav had applied for the post and successfully cleared various stages of the selection process.
• His candidature was later rejected by the screening committee after it found that he had criminal antecedents.
• The rejection was formally communicated through an order dated June 16, 2017, in which the authorities concluded that he was not suitable for appointment in the police force due to his involvement in a criminal case.
• Challenging this decision, he approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing a writ petition.
• He argued that the rejection of his candidature was unjustified and that he should not have been disqualified merely because of the criminal case.

Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and N V Anjaria said the effectiveness of law enforcement in society largely depends upon the character and integrity of those serving in the police force.

Proceedings before high court

• The matter was first heard by a single judge of the high court, who dismissed the writ petition on February 9, 2023.
• The single judge upheld the decision of the screening committee and found no illegality in the rejection of Yadav’s candidature.
• Yadav subsequently filed a writ appeal before a division bench of the high court. The division bench set aside the single judge’s judgment and granted relief to the respondent, effectively nullifying the rejection order issued by the state authorities.
• This decision prompted the Madhya Pradesh government to approach the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition (SLP), arguing that the division bench had erred in interfering with the decision of the screening committee.

The question of honourable acquittal

• The concept of “honourably acquitted” often becomes hazy. This court on several occasions observed that the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquittal of blame”, “fully acquitted” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the Penal Code, 1860. These phrases are coined in the judicial pronouncements.
• An honourable acquittal may be one where court comes to a definitive conclusion at the end of the trial upon full-fledged appreciation of evidence that the accused had not committed an offence for which he was charged.
• In such eventualities, the yardstick known to the criminal jurisprudence is applied namely that the offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• In a given case, say a person is charged for committing misappropriation of money. After trying the accused for the offence, if the court comes to a clear conclusion that the person has not committed misappropriation and has not defalcated money, it amounts to a clean chit in respect to the offence.
• It is suggestive of the factum that the misappropriation was not done.
• If the court holds that charge of misappropriation is not proved on the account of weak prosecution case or weak evidence and therefore it is not possible to conclusively record finding about the commission of offence, the acquittal which may follow in such circumstances cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal.

Observations

• While examining the case, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of maintaining high standards in the police force.
• The court noted that police personnel play a critical role in maintaining law and order and ensuring public safety. Therefore, the authorities must exercise careful scrutiny while selecting candidates.
• It added that the domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer.
• The court said that the employer would have a host of relevant considerations on whether it is feasible and advisable to offer employment to an aspirant.
• It added that where the employer or the screening committee of the employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject certain candidates by applying relevant considerations, and has not acted arbitrarily or whimsically, the courts have no role to interpose.
• A demonstrably mala fide approach by the employer would give room to the courts to exercise the power of judicial review, the court said.

• It said that the screening committee constituted for recruitment is vested with the authority to evaluate the suitability of candidates based on their antecedents and overall conduct.
• ‘The courts are not expected to override the wisdom of the employer in judging the suitability of a candidate and in considering the relevance of the antecedents of the candidate and would not substitute its own view’, the court said.
• The court emphasised that the character and antecedents of a candidate are crucial factors in recruitment to the police force. Even if a candidate has otherwise qualified in the recruitment process, the state is entitled to examine his background and assess whether he is fit to be entrusted with the responsibilities of policing.
• The Supreme Court further noted that the purpose of such scrutiny is to ensure that individuals with questionable backgrounds do not enter a disciplined force where integrity and trust are paramount.

Restoration of state’s decision

• The Supreme Court stated that the high court’s division bench had erred in setting aside the screening committee’s decision. The court held that the authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of Rajkumar Yadav on the basis of his criminal antecedents. The top court allowed the appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh and restored the decision rejecting Yadav’s candidature for the post of constable (driver).
• It held, “Learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition upholding the decision of the screening committee. The judgment and order of learned Single Judge of the High Court, which was eminently just and legal, came to be reversed by the Division Bench of the High Court for not good reason, directing that the acquittal ought to have been treated as an honourable acquittal and required the appellant-employer to consider the respondent for appointment to the post”.
• The division bench thereby intruded into the functional realm of the screening committee and trampled upon its discretion.

With inputs from Sumit Kumar Singh. Sumit is an intern with The Indian Express.