Summary
Police-constable candidates disclosed prior prosecutions ending in acquittal, but a screening committee found them unsuitable after examining the underlying cases. The Court upheld cancellation of their candidature, holding that disclosure and acquittal did not create a right to appointment and that the courts had improperly substituted their assessment for the committee’s.
Issues
- Whether truthful disclosure and acquittal compelled police appointment despite an adverse screening assessment.
Held
- Acquittal does not automatically establish suitability or compel appointment, even where the candidate truthfully disclosed the case. The employer may examine antecedents and whether the acquittal represents complete exoneration or benefit of doubt. (¶ 10–13)
- The committee must examine the offence, involvement and reasons for acquittal, including hostile witnesses or prosecution flaws, with due regard to the integrity required of police personnel and fair treatment of candidates. It individually examined those matters here. (¶ 13–15)
- No mala fides were shown. The Tribunal and High Court erred in replacing the screening committee’s suitability decision with their own. Joginder Singh was distinguished on its facts. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Administration’s appeals allowed; impugned judgment set aside and cancellation of the respondents’ candidature upheld. No costs.