Bilaspur : The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has held that merely disclosing a criminal case in an attestation form does not give a candidate an absolute right to appointment in the Police Force. At the same time, the pendency of a criminal case cannot automatically disqualify a candidate. The competent authority must examine the candidate’s complete criminal antecedents, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings and other relevant circumstances before deciding suitability. 3
The ruling was delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in WPS No. 7100 of 2026, filed by Narendra Pal Barman, who had sought consideration for appointment as Constable (GD) in Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara district under the Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner had participated in the recruitment process and, after completing the physical efficiency test and written examination, his name was placed at No. 1 in the waiting list. 3
The petitioner contended that he had truthfully disclosed two FIRs in his attestation form when directed to participate in the subsequent appointment process. One case, Crime No. 431/2022, involved Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 341, 353, 427 and 120-B of the IPC, while Crime No. 223/2023 involved Sections 186, 294, 34 and 506 of the IPC. He argued that, since he had made the disclosure and the criminal proceedings were pending, the authorities should consider his appointment subject to the final outcome of those cases. 3
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, the petitioner argued that truthful disclosure of criminal proceedings does not necessarily prevent an employer from appointing a candidate. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Ajhar Mehar v. Union of India & Ors. 3
The State opposed the petition, however, and raised a significant issue concerning the completeness of the disclosure. According to the State, as many as ten criminal cases were pending against the petitioner, whereas only two cases had been disclosed in the attestation form. The State also pointed to the allegation involving Section 307 IPC and argued that the petitioner’s complete criminal antecedents were an important consideration in determining his suitability for appointment to the Police Force. 3
The High Court clarified that truthful disclosure of a criminal case is an important factor, but it does not create an enforceable right to appointment. The Court observed, “mere disclosure of a criminal case by a candidate does not, by itself, confer an absolute right upon him to seek appointment.” At the same time, the Court made it equally clear that “pendency of a criminal case cannot, in every case, be treated as an automatic disqualification.” 3
The Court found that there was a material dispute regarding the petitioner’s complete criminal antecedents because the petitioner had disclosed two cases while the State claimed that ten cases were pending. Therefore, before reaching a final decision on his candidature, the authorities were required to verify the complete details of the cases and assess his suitability in accordance with law. 3
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru further emphasized the special nature of police service. The Court noted that the Police Force is a disciplined force entrusted with maintaining law and public order. Consequently, the employer is entitled to examine a candidate’s character and antecedents in their entirety, considering the high standards of discipline, integrity and probity expected from police personnel. 3
The judgment also clarified that even an acquittal or discharge does not necessarily mean that a candidate automatically possesses impeccable character for the purposes of police recruitment. The competent authority must examine the nature of the allegations, the manner in which the criminal proceedings concluded, if they have concluded, and the candidate’s overall antecedents. 3
Importantly, the High Court did not itself decide whether Narendra Pal Barman was suitable for appointment. Instead, it directed the competent authority or screening committee to independently examine his candidature after verifying all criminal cases, including those disclosed by him and those alleged by the State to be pending. The authority must consider the gravity of the allegations, the current status of the proceedings, the manner of disclosure and all other relevant circumstances affecting his character and suitability. 3
The petitioner has also been permitted to place relevant documents and materials before the competent authority in support of his candidature. The authority has been directed to pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order. 3
The decision is significant for police recruitment because it draws a clear distinction between criminal-case disclosure, automatic disqualification and suitability assessment. A pending FIR or criminal proceeding cannot by itself be treated as an automatic bar, but a candidate also cannot claim appointment merely because the case was disclosed or because his name appeared in a selection or waiting list. The employer retains the authority to assess whether the candidate meets the heightened standards expected of police personnel. 3
The case was argued for the petitioner by Senior Advocate Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, assisted by Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate, while Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate, appeared for the State.
