Courts Must Not Intrude Into Screening Committee’s Discretion In Police Recruitment: Supreme Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the impugned judgment had directed reconsideration of a candidate’s appointment to the post of constable (driver)
The Supreme Court has held that courts should not interfere with the discretion exercised by screening committees in assessing the suitability of candidates for recruitment to the Police force, emphasising that such disciplined services require individuals of impeccable character. The Bench allowed the State’s appeal and set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed reconsideration of a candidate’s appointment to the post of constable (driver).
The respondent had applied for the post of constable (driver) during the 2016 recruitment process. Although he disclosed in his affidavit that an FIR had been registered against him in 2012 under serious offences including kidnapping and rape under the IPC, he relied on the fact that the trial court had acquitted him in 2014 by giving him the benefit of doubt.
A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice N.V. Anjaria categorically observed, “…The Division Bench of the High Court thereby intruded into the functional realm of the screening committee and trampled upon its discretion which was validly exercised by the Committee to treat the respondent unsuitable to be employed in the police force”.
The Bench noted that while the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition upholding the decision of the screening committee, the Division Bench of the High Court erred when it directed the appellant to consider the respondent for appointment to the post.
“The domain of considering the fitness and suitability of a candidate for the purpose of taking him in service belongs to the employer. A host of relevant consideration would legitimately find a place in the process of such consideration by the employer to decide whether it is feasible and advisable to offer employment to an aspirant. Where the employer or the screening committee of the employer has acted to discard, exclude or reject the candidature by applying relevant considerations and has not acted arbitrarily or whimsically, the courts have no role to interpose. Of course, a demonstrably mala fide approach by the employer would give room to the courts to exercise the power of judicial review”, the Bench further observed.
Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Santosh Kumar appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, during character verification, the screening committee found him unsuitable for police service considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the acquittal. The writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court, but a Division Bench later overturned that decision and directed reconsideration of his case.
The High Court in the impugned order had treated the respondent’s earlier acquittal in a criminal case as a “clean and honourable acquittal” and asked authorities to reconsider his candidature.
The Court setting aside the High Court’s order, observed that maintaining law and order in society largely depends on the character and integrity of those serving in the police force, making it imperative that recruits be “beyond reproach”.
“More often than not, the quality of law and order in the society and maintenance thereof depends upon the character of the persons serving in the police force. It becomes imperative that the recruitees in the disciplined force should be the persons beyond reproach and men with rectitude”, the Bench had noted.
The Court further held that the Division Bench had improperly interfered with the functional domain of the screening committee and substituted its own assessment of the candidate’s suitability.
Accordingly, the Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge which had upheld the decision of the screening committee, and allowed the appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Cause Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Yadav [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 225]
Appearances:
Appellant: Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR, Karan Singh, Kanishk Sharma, Advocates.
Respondent: Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Rajiv R. Mishra, Suruchi Yadav, Ashutosh Yadav, AOR, Advocates.