The Allahabad High Court has set aside the cancellation of a police constable candidate’s selection after finding that the recruitment authorities had treated non-disclosure of a pending criminal case as deliberate suppression without examining the circumstances of the case.
Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the candidate’s online application specifically asked whether he had ever been convicted by a court. Since the form contained no separate question requiring disclosure of a pending criminal case, the declaration made by the candidate could not, by itself, be treated as false.
The Court emphasised that authorities must apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India before taking an adverse decision based on criminal antecedents.
Background of the Case
The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board issued an advertisement on December 29, 2015, for recruitment to the posts of Male Police Constable and Constable PAC. The petitioner submitted his online application on February 18, 2016.
The application form contained a pre-fixed declaration asking candidates to state whether they had ever been convicted by a court. There was no separate column asking candidates to disclose the pendency of a criminal case.
The petitioner subsequently cleared the physical efficiency test and entered the zone of consideration. During police verification, however, a criminal case registered in 2014 under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC came to light.
The trial later ended in his acquittal on August 25, 2018. The trial court recorded that the prosecution witnesses had stated that no such incident had occurred. Following the acquittal, character verification was conducted by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, and the petitioner was found suitable and permitted to proceed for training.
Despite this, the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, cancelled his candidature on January 2, 2019, citing criminal antecedents and alleged concealment through a false declaration.
Court’s Observations
The High Court examined the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh, which requires authorities to consider factors such as the nature of the post, whether disclosure was specifically sought, the nature of the offence, the outcome of the criminal case, and the candidate’s age at the relevant time.
The Court also considered Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar and Pawan Kumar v. Union of India. It noted that these decisions do not permit a mechanical approach to cases involving criminal antecedents.
The Court observed:
“In the absence of a specific query, non-disclosure at the application stage cannot, without more, be equated with a false declaration or deliberate suppression.”
The Court further noted that the petitioner was around 17 years old when the FIR was registered. It also found that the case arose from a quarrel, did not involve moral turpitude, and ended in an acquittal which the Court treated as merit-based rather than one granted merely on benefit of doubt.
The High Court also found that the cancellation order failed to discuss the petitioner’s age, the nature of the case, the acquittal, or the subsequent favourable character verification. It therefore held that the order was mechanical and lacked the application of mind required under Avtar Singh.
Court’s Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the January 2, 2019 order cancelling the petitioner’s candidature.
It directed the respondents to treat the petitioner as validly selected pursuant to the 2015 recruitment advertisement and to permit him to undergo training and/or issue the consequential appointment order within eight weeks of production of the certified copy of the judgment.
The Court clarified that the ruling was confined to the facts of the case and would not apply as a precedent where the offence is grave, involves moral turpitude, or the candidate stands convicted.
Case Details:
Case Title: Raju Gangwar v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow & Ors.
Case Number: Writ-A No. 4845 of 2019
Judge: Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Decision Date: September 15, 2026
