Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar & Ors.
Background
Several candidates provisionally selected as Delhi Police constables had disclosed past criminal cases against them (assault, trespass, and in one case kidnapping), which later ended either in acquittal or in compromise with the complainant. Delhi Police's Screening Committee examined each case and rejected their candidature as unsuitable for a police job. The candidates challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal and then the Delhi High Court, both of which ruled in the candidates' favour, holding that the Screening Committee had acted mechanically.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its role by re-examining the facts of each criminal case as if sitting in appeal over the Screening Committee's decision. Relying on earlier rulings (Mehar Singh, Avtar Singh), the Court held that an acquittal or a compromise-based closure does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment, especially for a disciplined force like the police, where the Screening Committee (made up of senior, experienced officers) is specially empowered to assess whether a candidate's past conduct makes them unsuitable, and courts should not second-guess that assessment unless it is arbitrary or made in bad faith. Examining each candidate's case individually, the Court found the Screening Committee's reasoning was not mechanical and had properly considered the nature of the compromise or acquittal in each instance. The High Court's judgment was set aside and all four appeals were allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Being acquitted in a criminal case, or settling it through compromise, does not automatically guarantee a right to a government job: authorities assessing "suitability" for sensitive posts like policing have wide discretion, and courts will not casually override that judgment.