In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court deliberated on a candidate’s challenge against disqualification from the recruitment process for a Constable position due to a false affidavit and the concealment of a previous criminal case that led to acquittal. The Court emphasized that decisions regarding such cases should not be mechanical but rather consider all relevant factors.
The bench, comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, cautioned against a blanket disqualification for non-disclosures, emphasizing the need to assess each case individually. They stressed the importance of a holistic view based on objective criteria and precedent, rather than arbitrary decisions.
The case in question involved an appellant whose selection was canceled by the Allahabad High Court due to non-disclosure of a criminal case during the verification process. Despite being required to disclose all criminal cases and details of acquittals, the appellant answered negatively in the affidavit provided.
Initially dismissed by a Single Judge and later by a Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the non-disclosure was not willful and was based on a belief that it was unnecessary due to the subsequent acquittal.
The State contended that the appellant had provided false information, citing previous judgments that emphasized the importance of truthful disclosure in such matters.
However, the Supreme Court highlighted that the appellant had no criminal case registered against him at the time of application and was acquitted five days after applying. It emphasized the need for objective consideration, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the office, timing and nature of the case, socioeconomic background, and character reports.
The Court referenced previous cases where relief was granted despite similar allegations of false affidavits, emphasizing the importance of considering the individual’s overall suitability.
Critically, the verification report in this case attested to the appellant’s good character, with no other pending or registered cases against him.
The Court concluded that the cancellation order was unfair and unreasonable, as it did not follow the prescribed mandate for character verification. It directed the appellant’s appointment as a Constable, with entitlement to all notional benefits, though arrears of salary during the period of non-service were denied.
This verdict underscores the necessity for courts to exercise discretion in cases of non-disclosure during recruitment, ensuring fairness and avoiding arbitrary decisions.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
