Cannot Deny Appointment Merely Because Candidate Was Tried For Offence U/S 498A IPC If He Was Acquitted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed appointment of a candidate whose candidature was rejected on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

Pramod Singh Kirar applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and was found eligible to be appointed as Constable. In the verification form itself he declared that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC earlier and was later acquitted in the said case. Later his candidature was rejected on the ground that he was involved in this criminal case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) upheld this rejection observing that if the candidate is found to be involved in a criminal case, even in a case of acquittal and/or even in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, it cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar noted that the offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court. It was further noticed that there was no suppression of material fact in this case.

"Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife).", the bench said.

The court therefore directed his appointment to post of constable within a period of four weeks.

Case details

Pramod Singh Kirar vs State of Madhya Pradesh |  2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1008 | CA 8934-8935 OF 2022 | 2 Dec 2022 | Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar

For Appellant(s) Mr. S.K. Gangele, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Adv. Dr. Satish Chandra, Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR

For Respondent(s) Ms. Ankita Chaudhry, Dy.AG Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhry, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Adv.

Headnotes

Public Employment - Rejection of candidature on the ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A - The offence for which he was tried ultimately resulted into acquittal had arisen out of the matrimonial dispute which ultimately ended in settlement out of the court  - There was no suppression of material fact - Candidate could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment