Mr. Mandeep Baisala and Mr. Kavesh Bidhuri, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA

Judgment

1. First Information Report1 dated 17 February 2017 was registered against the petitioner and five other accused, at PS Kalamassery, District Ernakulam, alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. It was alleged, in the FIR, that the accused, including the petitioner, had formed an unlawful assembly and had assaulted two persons, in which process one of the said persons, on whose complaint the FIR was registered, lost his mobile phone and wallet. A trial followed, at the conclusion of which, by judgement Signature Not Verified

1 "FIR" Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025 dated 13 November 2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class3, Kalamassery, acquitted all the accused, including petitioner, of the offences alleged against them. Para 6 to 10 of the judgement of the learned JMFC read thus: “6. Prosecution evidence consists of oral testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and documentary evidence of Ext.P1, F.I.S. P.W.1 lodged Ext.P1 F.I.S based on which, Crime No. 364/17 was registered at Kalamassery Police Station. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the injured in this case. They deposed that in the month of February, 2017 the incident occurred inside their Hostel at Polytechnic, Kalamassery. According to them, a few persons trespassed into their room and assaulted them and thereby, they sustained injuries. On sustaining injuries, they went to Medical College, Kalamassery where, they admitted and underwent treatment. P.W.1 deposed that he had given Ext.P1 F.I.S to the Police. 7. He also deposed that he lost a mobile phone worth, Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and five hundred only). However, he further deposed that he did not know the persons who trespassed into their room and caused assault to him. P.W.2 to P.W.4 also denied the prosecution case. They specifically deposed that they did not know the persons who trespassed into their room and caused assault.

8. Upon perusing the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, it is evident that they turned hostile to the prosecution case. They have no case that it was the accused who assaulted them as alleged by the prosecution. In the absence of evidence to prove the allegations against the accused, they cannot be held liable for any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, it is found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence, Point No.1 to 8 are found against the prosecution. Point No.9

9. In view of finding on Point No.1 to 8 as above, the accused can only be acquitted of the offences punishable under section 143, 147, 448, 451, 341, 323, 324 and 427 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. Point No.10 Signature Not Verified 2 “IPC” hereinafter 3 "the learned JMFC" hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025

10. In the result, the accused are not found guilty of offences punishable under section 143, 147, 448, 451, 341, 323, 324 and 427 r/w 149 of the I.P.C and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty and their bail bond stand canceled.” Thus, the learned JMFC found the case to be one of no evidence, even though it was because the Prosecution Witnesses4 had turned hostile.

2. Five years after the above incident, which formed subject matter of the FIR registered against the petitioner and other accused, and three years after they stood acquitted therein, a Notice was issued by the Central Industrial Security Force5, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Constable/GD for the year 2022, through a selection to be held by the Staff Selection Commission. There is no dispute that the petitioner was qualified and eligible for the post of Constable/GD, in terms of the said Notice. He, therefore, applied in response to the Notice, following which he participated in the selection process. On 22 August 2023, the petitioner was issued a communication by the CISF, informing him that he had been provisionally selected for appointment as Constable/GD.

3. The petitioner was asked to report for training at the Regional Training Centre, Behror, on 15 October 2023. On reaching there, the petitioner was required to disclose as to whether there were any pending criminal cases against him. The petitioner truthfully disclosed the fact of registration of FIR 0364/2017 dated 17 February 2017 at PS Kalamassery, as well as the details of the case. The petitioner also Signature Not Verified 4 “PWs” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025 pointed out that, after a complete trial, the learned JMFC had acquitted the petitioner of all charges against him.

4. Despite having come clean about the earlier criminal case having been registered against him, no decision was being taken by the CISF on the candidature of the petitioner and others similarly circumstanced, which compelled them to approach this Court by way of WP (C) 14063/20246. By order dated 7 October 2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Screening Committee of the CISF to take a decision regarding the petitioners within 8 weeks.

5. Albeit belatedly, and after the petitioner was constrained to move this Court for contempt, the CISF proceeded to issue the following letter dated 14 December 2024, to the petitioner: To, “14.12.2024 Roll No, 9213003459 Name- Sandeep K.L. S/O Shri, Lohithakshan Koshnakattuchira panngad, PO- Ernakulam Distt- Ernakulam State- Kerala, Pin Code-682506. Subject:- OF COMMITTEE STANDING DECISION SCREENING FOR EXAMINATION OF CASES OF CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT IN VARIOUS RANKS IN CISF WHO WRE INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL CASES IN THE PAST: REG. SELECTED In accordance with the direction received from the FHQrs, Signature Not Verified 5 “CISF" hereinafter 6 Methrole Sudhakar v UOI Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025 New Delhi Vide letter No (3045) dated 11/12/2024 regarding above mentioned subject.

02. It is intimated that as per the decision of the standing screening committee for examination of cases of candidates selected for appointment in various ranks in CISF who were involved in criminal cases in the past, found you "Unsuitable for employment in CISF".

03. This is for kind information please. Commandant CISF MPRTC (Behror)”

6. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his candidature, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying that the decision communicated to the petitioner by the letter dated 14 December 2024, cancelling his candidature for the post of Const./GD, be quashed and set aside, and that the Respondent be directed to appoint the petitioner as Constable/GD in the CISF.

7. Pleadings in the writ petition have been completed. We have heard Mr. Mandeep Baisala for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Saket, learned SPC for the Respondent-UOI.

8. Mr. Baisala relies on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh v Directorate General Sahastra Seema Bal7, whereas Mr. Saket cites UOI v Methu Meda8.

9. A similar dispute had come up before us in Manish Saini v Signature Not Verified 7 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7608 8 (2022) 1 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025 GNCTD9, though that case dealt with recruitment to a civil post, and arose out of a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner Manish Saini10, in that case, was accused of having attempted to rob a pedestrian at knife point, and an FIR was registered against him for having committed offences under Sections 398 and 401 of the IPC read with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms At, 1959. Consequent on the trial which followed, Manish was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge11, on the ground that the statements of the PWs were not consistent, no independent witness had been joined and that it was unbelievable that Manish and his fellow accused, who were alleged to have been armed, did not put up resistance when intercepted by the Police officials. The learned ASJ concluded by holding that “the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt” and that, therefore, the accused, including Manish, were entitled to be acquitted. Five years thereafter, Manish applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector12 in the Delhi Police, via the Delhi Police Examination 2017. He was provisionally selected. He had disclosed, at the time of applying for the post, the fact that he had been arrayed as an accused in the FIR and that he had been acquitted by the learned ASJ. Solely on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case, his candidature for the post of SI was cancelled. The Screening Committee observed that, as Manish had been involved in a serious offence of attempted robbery and was in possession of spring actuated knives, he was unsuitable for recruitment to a disciplined force such as 9 315 (2024) DLT 707 (DB) 10 “Manish” hereinafter 11 "ASJ" hereinafter 12 "SI" hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.09.2025 19:31:54 W.P.(C) 367/2025 the Police. Aggrieved thereby, Manish approached the CAT by way of an OA, which was dismissed by judgement dated 10 June 2022, relying, inter alia, on Methu Meda, which was cited before us by Mr. Saket. Manish, thereafter, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. This Court noticed that appointment to the Delhi Police was governed by Standing Order13 398/2018 dated 18 October 2018, which clearly noted that a candidate who had been involved in a criminal case could be disqualified from appointment even if he had disclosed his involvement. We also noted that the position, in law, regarding the controversy, was well settled. We consideration the judgements of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v State14, Pramod Singh Kirar v State of MP15, Methu Meda, State of Rajasthan v Love Kush Meena16, State of MP v Bunty17, and State of MP v Bhupendra Yadav18. Methu Meda itself notes the following principles, laid down by the learned 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v UOI19, in para 16 of the report, thus: “16. The law with regard to the effect and consequence of the acquittal, concealment of criminal case on appointments, etc. has been settled in Avtar Singh, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court decided, as thus: “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: