Chhattisgarh High Court: disclosing a pending criminal case does not entitle a candidate to a police job

Disposing of a writ petition by Narendra Pal Barman, a waitlisted Constable (GD) candidate, the Chhattisgarh High Court (Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) held that truthfully disclosing a pending criminal case in a recruitment attestation form does not, by itself, give a candidate a right to be appointed, even though non-disclosure or false disclosure can disqualify him. Barman had disclosed two pending FIRs, including one under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and argued he was entitled to appointment pending the outcome of trial, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Avtar Singh v. Union of India. The State disputed this, contending ten criminal cases were pending against him, not two.

The Court held that for a disciplined force such as the police, the employer is entitled to examine a candidate's character and antecedents as a whole — the nature of the allegations, the stage of proceedings and the overall record — before deciding suitability; disclosure neither confers an automatic right to appointment nor is pendency itself a bar. It directed the recruiting authority to verify Barman's complete antecedents, including the disputed number of cases, and pass a fresh, reasoned order on his suitability within sixty days, without expressing any view on the outcome. This is a High Court ruling binding only in Chhattisgarh, not a Supreme Court precedent.