On Friday, the Supreme Court bench, comrpising of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, ordered to give an "appointment" to a candidate whose application had been turned down because he had been charged with an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

The Apex Court noted in the appeal that the crime for which he was tried and ultimately found not guilty stemmed from a matrimonial dispute that was ultimately resolved outside of court. Furthermore, it was noted that a crucial fact, in this case, was not suppressed.

"Under the circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant could not have been denied the appointment solely on the aforesaid ground that he was tried for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and that too, for the offence alleged to have happened in the year 2001 for which he was even acquitted in the year 2006 may be on settlement (between husband and wife).", the bench said.

Therefore, the court ordered his assignment to the position of a constable within four weeks.

In 2013, Pramod Singh Kirar sought for the position of constable and was approved for the position. He stated that he had previously been tried for the offence under Section 498A IPC and had been found not guilty in that case in the verification form itself. Later, his application was turned down because of his involvement in the criminal case.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) upheld this denial, noting that if the candidate is found to have been involved in a criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be forced to appoint them—even in cases where the candidate has been cleared or the employee has made a declaration that accurately describes a finalised criminal case.

Case Title: Pramod Singh Kirar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: CA 8934-8935 OF 2022

Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16190/16190_2022_5_1503_40235_Judgement_02-Dec-2022.pdf