On a busy courtroom morning in Ahmedabad, the Gujarat High Court sent a clear message to recruiting authorities: a minor criminal case that has already been quashed should not automatically ruin a young candidate’s career. Justice Nirzar S. Desai set aside an order that had stopped a selected candidate from joining as an Unarmed Police Constable, calling for a fair and practical view of such cases.
The case was filed by Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod, who had cleared the recruitment process but was turned away at the last step because of an old FIR, even though that case had already been closed by the court.
Background of the Case
Sangod applied in 2021 for the posts of Unarmed Police Constable (Lokrakshak) and SRPF Constable. He passed the process and found his name on the select list. But in October 2023, the authorities told him he would not be allowed to join.
The reason was an FIR from 2018 registered at Dhanpur Police Station under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rioting and causing hurt. The allegations, however, were limited to giving kick and fist blows and using abusive words. There was no serious injury, and the case did not lead to any conviction. Later, in June 2023, the High Court had already quashed that FIR with the consent of the complainant.
Despite this, the department relied on guidance from senior police offices and rejected his appointment during character verification.
Sangod’s lawyer told the court that the online application form did not even have a column to disclose past or pending cases. More importantly, she stressed that the case was petty, had ended in a lawful quashing, and there was no question of hiding anything.
She warned that if mere registration of a case is treated as a lifetime barrier, “it becomes very easy to block a deserving candidate with a false or minor complaint.” The court record shows the allegations were only about a small scuffle and abuse, nothing more.
The government opposed the plea. The Assistant Government Pleader argued that the police force needs people with “absolutely clean” records and high discipline. According to the State, once the verification revealed a past case, the authorities were justified in stopping the appointment, even if the case was later quashed.
Justice Desai took a balanced view. The court noted that there was no allegation of suppression by the candidate. More importantly, it asked a direct question: should the “shadow” of a quashed FIR follow a person forever?
The judge observed,
“If mere registration of an offence, even if later quashed, is treated as a permanent bar, it can lead to serious injustice.” The court pointed out that in everyday life, false or minor cases can arise from disputes, and not all of them reflect a person’s real character.
The judgment also clarified that in serious or heinous crimes, or in cases of doubtful acquittal, the employer can still refuse appointment. But in minor matters like this one, especially when the case is already closed, a blanket rejection is not fair.
Setting aside the October 12, 2023 order, the High Court ruled that the authorities were wrong to deny Sangod his chance. The court directed the State to reconsider his case for appointment as Unarmed Constable and appoint him if he is otherwise found suitable and clears the medical test.
The petition was allowed, and the earlier rejection order was quashed.
Case Title:- Bharatbhai Khumsinghbhai Sangod vs State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number:- Special Civil Application No. 21060 of 2023
Date of Judgment:- 29 January 2026
