1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not permitting him to join on the post of Constable in the respondent - department.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an advertisement issued for the vacant post of Constable in the respondent/department, the petitioner had applied, appeared and secured 71% marks in the written examination. After selection in the written test, the petitioner was called for second stage whereby, physical proficiency test of the petitioner was taken on 26.05.2013 and here also, he was declared fit.

3 . The petitioner at the time of his verification had disclosed that one criminal case was registered against him under Section 427 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide FIR No.287of 2011 in which, the petitioner was honorably acquitted by the competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction vide judgment dated 14.03.2012.

4 . The candidature of the petitioner was rejected without assigning any reason despite being selected and acquitted from the aforesaid offences as indicated above, the appointment has been denied to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner's candidature has been rejected without assigning any reason which is against the directives issued vide Circular dated 24.7.2018 wherein, it is specifically mentioned that if the criminal case is registered and pending against a candidate, then after finalization of the aforesaid case, the matter should be considered by the competent authority about seriousness of the crime but in the case of the petitioner, though the criminal case registered against him has resulted into acquittal by the Trial Court, without referring matter to the competent authority for consideration, candidature of the petitioner has been rejected without any authority of law.

6. It was further argued that as per the law laid down in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471, guidelines have been framed to consider the criminal antecedents of a candidate whereunder, the case of the petitioner falls under Para 38.8 wherein, the committee constituted by the State has to look about the seriousness of the crime and since it has not been considered while rejecting claim of the petitioner, the action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal. Thus, it was argued that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be sustained and since he had cleared all the stages of the examination, his candidature was required to be considered and he was entitled to be given appointment.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner is having criminal background and is not fit for being appointed in the uniformed police force.

8. It was further argued that in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Abhijeet Pawar and Others reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 419 [LQ/MPHC/2018/138] , the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of Avtar Singh (Supra) and had clarified that an employer cannot be forced to give appointment to an employee having criminal antecedents and as the offences registered against the petitioner involved `moral turpitude', the employer had rightly rejected claim of the petitioner.

9 . It was also argued that the police force is a disciplined force and a person having criminal antecedents cannot be given appointment. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Writ Appeal No.84 of 2021, decided on 18.04.2022 wherein the view taken by Hon'ble Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Abhijeet Panwar (Supra) that employer can rely over the previous criminal history of a candidate even after acquittal order, considering the nature of duties to be performed by the delinquent, has been followed. Thus, it was prayed that the petition being sans merits, be dismissed.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. In a very recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 798, while considering all the case laws which governed the field till date, has summarized the principles as follows

"a) Each case should be scrutinised thoroughly by the public employer concerned, through its designated officials more so, in the case of recruitment for the police force, who are under a duty to maintain order, and tackle lawlessness, since their ability to inspire public confidence is a bulwark to society as security. [See Raj Kumar (supra)]

b ) Even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully and correctly of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. The acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically entitle a candidate for appointment to the post. It would be still open to the employer to consider the antecedents and examine whether the candidate concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the post.

c ) The suppression of material information and making a false statement in the verification Form relating to arrest, prosecution, conviction etc., has a clear bearing on the character, conduct and antecedents of the employee. If it is found that the employee had suppressed or given false information in regard to the matters having a bearing on his fitness or suitability to the post, he can be terminated from service.

d) The generalisations about the youth, career prospects and age of the candidates leading to condonation of the offenders conduct, should not enter the judicial verdict and should be avoided.

e) The Court should inquire whether the Authority concerned whose action is being challenged acted mala fide.

f) Is there any element of bias in the decision of the Authority

g) Whether the procedure of inquiry adopted by the Authority concerned was fair and reasonable"

12. In the aforesaid matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring one of its own decision in the matter of Mohd. Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 Vol. 17 SCC 696 wherein even though delinquent was acquitted from the offences under Section 363 and 366 read with Section 64 of IPC, was denied appointment on the ground of registration of crime involving `moral turpitude', the Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the appeal, observed as under

"5. Employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies. But that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services, may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.

6. That the expression `moral turpitude' is not capable of precise definition was considered in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, (1996) 4 SCC 17, [LQ/SC/1996/950] opining:

"12. "Moral turpitude" is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity"

7. The appellant by dint of hard academic labour was successful at the competitive examination held on 16.08.2009 and after viva voce was selected and recommended for appointment by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission on 14.10.2009. In his attestation form, he had duly disclosed his prosecution and acquittal. Mere disclosure in an appropriate case may not be sufficient to hold for suitability in employment. Nonetheless the nature of allegations and the conduct in the facts of a case would certainly be a relevant factor. While others so recommended came to be appointed, the selection of the appellant was annulled on 04.06.2010 in view of the character verification report of the police.

8. It is an undisputed fact that one Shri Sudhir Gulabrao Barde, who had been acquitted on 24.11.2009 in Case No.3022 of 2007 under Sections 294, 504, 34, IPC, has been appointed. We are not convinced, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant could be discriminated and denied appointment arbitrarily when both the appointments were in judicial service, by the same selection procedure, of persons who faced criminal prosecutions and were acquitted. The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents, that the former was not involved in a case of moral turpitude does not leave us convinced. In Joginder Singh (supra), it was observed as follows:

"25. Further, apart from a small dent in the name of this criminal case in which he has been honourably acquitted, there is no other material on record to indicate that the antecedents or the conduct of the Appellant was not up to the mark to appoint him to the post".

9. In the present proceedings, on 23.03.2018, this Court had called for a confidential report of the character verification as also the antecedents of the appellant as on this date. The report received reveals that except for the criminal case under reference in which he has been acquitted, the appellant has a clean record and there is no adverse material against him to deny him the fruits of his academic labour in a competitive selection for the post of a judicial officer. In our opinion, no reasonable person on the basis of the materials placed before us can come to the conclusion that the antecedents and character of the appellant are such that he is unfit to be appointed as a judicial officer. An alleged single misadventure or misdemeanour of the present nature, if it can be considered to be so, cannot be sufficient to deny appointment to the appellant when he has on all other aspects and parameters been found to be fit for appointment. The Law is well settled in this regard in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471. If empanelment creates no right to appointment, equally there can be no arbitrary denial of appointment after empanelment.

10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the consideration of the candidature of the appellant and its rejection are afflicted by a myopic vision, blurred by the spectacle of what has been described as moral turpitude, reflecting inadequate appreciation and application of facts also, as justice may demand.

11. We, therefore, consider the present a fit case to set aside the order dated 04.06.2010 and the impugned order dismissing the writ petition, and direct the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the appellant. Let such fresh consideration be done and an appropriate decision be taken in light of the present discussion, preferably within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt and production of the copy of the present order. In order to avoid any future litigation on seniority or otherwise, we make it clear that in the event of appointment, the appellant shall not be entitled to any other reliefs".

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter took a view that although employment opportunities is a scarce commodity in our country as every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for limited number of vacancies, but that may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credentials of the candidate may raise serious questions regarding suitability, irrespective of eligibility. However, at the same time, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that there should not be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude, to deny appointment in judicial service simplicitor. Much will depend on the facts of a case. Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate, may not always constitute justice. Much will, however depend on the fact situation of a case.

14. Thus, from the above enunciation, the principle `culled out' as would b e applicable in the present case, would be that even where an employee had made a declaration of conclusion or continuance of a criminal case, the employer will have a right to consider the antecedents and it would be open to the employer to consider his/her antecedents and examine whether the person concerned is suitable and fit for appointment to the said post.

15. This fact appears not to have been considered while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner simplicitor because, a criminal case was registered against him, ended into acquittal which was required to be considered as per the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Chandra Yadav (Supra).

16. Thus, the petition succeeds. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as above. Let the said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order

17. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is allowed and disposed off finally.