Pramod Singh Kirar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 8934-8935 OF 2022
Judges sitting: M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar
Decided on: 2 December, 2022
This case deals with the issue of cancellation of appointment of candidate to
public employment due to his antecedents. It gives us a clear view on if any
person being tried for non serious offence be given public employment without
considering his criminal case history. This case has a chance of becoming a
strong precedent since it considered every minute facts of the case and
delivered a detailed judgment.
Background Of The Case:
The Appellant herein applied for the post of Constable in the year 2013 and was
eligible for the post of Constable. He disclosed that he was involved in the
criminal case earlier in his verification form. He was denied public employment
although he was acquitted for the offence he was already tried.
The Appellant has filed the Writ Petition before the Supreme Court against the
order of cancellation of his candidature by the High Court and to appoint him
for the post of Constable with all benefits including 50% back wages from the
date on which other batch mates came to be appointed on the post of Constable.
- Whether the order cancelling the appointment of the appellant is valid?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to any benefit?
Denial Of Public Employment To Candidate With Criminal Antecedent:
The Respondent in the instant case has first relied on the judgment given by the
High Court that if the Candidate is found to be involved in any criminal case,
the employer has a right to observe the Candidate's past history and he cannot
be forced to appoint just because he has disclosed his criminal antecedents.
It is the submission that the Bench of the High Court did not took into account
of the fact that the case under Section 498A of IPC was resulted in acquittal in
the year 2006 as a result of settlement reached between the husband and wife
outside the Court. In this case, the invitation of applications for the post of
constable was in the year 2013/2014 and it is not acceptable to penalize the
appellant for the thing that has happened 7-8 years ago.
The Respondent has relied on another case in which it was held that when a
candidate is involved in a criminal case, it is only the decision of the
employer to appoint or remove such a person. The Court observed that the
Appellant did not face any other prosecution for the other offences of IPC.
Effect Of Disclosure Of Criminal Antecedents:
The Court observed that it is not right to place reliance on the case of Anil
Kanwariya as the facts are different in both cases. In the case of Anil
Kanwariya, the candidate suppressed the antecedents and material facts and
acquired appointment by fraud and suppression of material fact.
Also, it is the case that the candidate was convicted for some offence at the
time of appointment. Whereas, in the present case, there was neither any
concealment of facts nor any conviction of the candidate. Since the present case
differs in two aspects from the Anil Kanwariya case, it is not wise to pass any
judgment by relying on such case. The effect of the disclosure of material facts
like criminal antecedent gives an upper hand for the appellant in the present
The Court delivered its judgment after considering two main aspects like
disclosure of material fact and acquittal from the case. The Court held that the
High Court is not justified in denying the appointment to the appellant for the
post of Constable. The High Court's order terminating the service of appellant
has to be quashed. The Court has passed an order to restore the appointment to
public employment and to provide all benefits to the appellant from the date of
actual appointment till date.
The Court is justified in holding that the appellant should be reinstated to
employment within four weeks. The Court has rightly considered the aspects of
non suppression of material fact and acquittal. If the judgment was not in favor
of Appellant, then it would be a bad example since thousands of applicants would
be denied appointment merely because they were tried for an offence.
This judgment would serve justice since there are numerous false cases everyday
on the basis of personal vengeance. Also, in the case, it was observed that the
petitioner is accused of committing a minor offence at a young age that was
neither significant nor horrific and it was impossible to call into question the
petitioner's moral character under such circumstances.
The High Court has erred in not considering the abovementioned case, and
delivering judgment solely on the basis of history of prosecution. Had the
judgment not been reversed, there would have been a grave injustice to the
candidates. There shouldn't be any material discrimination of the candidates on
the basis of criminal record.