New Delhi, June 8: The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to reinstate the candidacy of an applicant for the police constable recruitment in Telangana. The court stated that the state’s recruitment agencies had acted arbitrarily by denying the appointment based on a criminal case linked to a failed romantic relationship, which was later resolved through a compromise in a Lok Adalat.
The bench, led by Justices Manoj Mishra and Manmohan, made this decision after Gajul Thirupati filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The court also overturned a decision by the Telangana High Court‘s division bench that had upheld the cancellation of his provisional selection for the position of ‘Stipendiary Cadet Training Police Constable’ (SCTPC).
In its ruling, the bench emphasized that employers can assess the suitability of candidates who have been acquitted in criminal cases, but such decisions must not be arbitrary.
The Supreme Court stated, “The state and its officials cannot act arbitrarily. Therefore, when such decisions are subject to judicial review, it must be shown that (a) there is material on record indicating that a morally reprehensible crime was committed, and (b) there is solid material against the candidate, even if they have been acquitted.”
The bench, led by Justice Mishra, remarked, “To say that a compromise implies an admission of guilt is baseless. Furthermore, to claim that the appellant settled because he was guilty is completely incorrect and unreasonable.”
The court noted that the petitioner had provided complete and accurate information regarding the criminal case, and there were no allegations of concealing facts. The Supreme Court objected to the recruitment authorities’ argument that the compromise reached in the Lok Adalat was akin to an admission of guilt.
The apex court clarified that the case involved a relationship between two adults, and officials should not draw negative conclusions about a person’s character solely based on this. The Supreme Court further stated that not every romantic relationship culminates in marriage, and it cannot be concluded that one party deceived the other simply because the relationship did not lead to marriage.
Based on these grounds, the Supreme Court annulled the High Court’s division bench decision and reinstated the order of the single judge, which directed a reconsideration of the appellant’s appointment.
The appellant had reported that he was previously charged under IPC sections 417, 420, and 506 (along with section 34). This case was filed by a woman who alleged that he promised to marry her but later married someone else. The matter was resolved in Lok Adalat in 2015. Despite this, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board had canceled his provisional selection.
–
Leave a Comment