APHC010050702025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3460]

THURSDAY, THE 3

rd

DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION NO: 2790/2025

Between:

1. KAILA SANJEEVA RAO, S/O BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS. C/O JAAPURAM, KODURU, KODURU, KRISHNA

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -521328.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD, STATE

OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN

MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA

DISTRICT.

4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI,

GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP

OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRAINING DGP

OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2

7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI,

WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that

in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High

Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a writ or direction particularly

one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus action of the respondents in

rejecting the petitioner candidature for the post of SCT

PC(CIVIL)(MEN)(21 ) West Godavari District consequently not

sending the petitioner for induction training despite of petitioner

acquitted from all the criminal proceedings against him is illegal,

arbitrary and violation of article 14,15,19 and 21 of the constitution of

India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and

consequently direct the respondents to send the petitioner to induction

training simultaneously without any delay and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the respondents to

consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.11.2024

forthwith without any delay pending disposal of the above writ petition

and to pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased may be pleased to postulist the W.P. No:

2790 of 2025and amend the Order dated 05.02.2025 for being

mentioned i.e Respondent no.2 to consider the representation

25.11.2024 made by the petitioner instead of the Respondent no.5-7 to

consider the representation 25.11.2024 made by the petitioner and

pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

3

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased may be pleased to issue a writ or direction

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus action of the

respondents in rejecting the petitioner candidature for the post of SCT

PC(CIVIL) (MEN) (21) West Godavari District consequently not

sending the petitioner for induction training despite of petitioner

acquitted from all the criminal proceedings against him is illegal,

arbitrary and violation of article 14,15,19 &. 21 of the constitution of

India and pass such other order of orders as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and

consequently direct the respondents to send the petitioner to induction

training simultaneously without any delay and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the

High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave for filing of

the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.2790 of 2025 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G V SHIVAJI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.2790 of 2025

ORDER:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the rejection of

candidature of Petitioner for induction training to SCT PC (Civil) and to

declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts in brief are as follows;

A recruitment notification was issued by the State Level Police

Recruitment Board for recruitment to the post of Police Constables in

terms of Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee)

Rules, 1999 on 30.12.2008. The Petitioner had applied for the post of

SCT PC (Civil) (Men) and was allotted Registration No.740784.

The Petitioner had successfully qualified in the written test and

physical test and was provisionally selected for the said post.

3. While so, a criminal case was registered against the Petitioner in

Cr. No.92 of 2010 on the file of Avanigadda P.S., which was registered

for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 323 R/w Section

34 IPC, which was registered as C.C.No.60 of 2010 before the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda and the same was

settled before Lok Adalat on 11.12.2010. On the basis of involvement

5

in the criminal case, the provisional selection of the Petitioner was

rejected on 25.05.2011. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed.

4. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was stated

that in the recruitment notification, it was clearly mentioned at

Paragraphs 21 and 22 that no person shall be eligible for appointment

unless he satisfies the selection authority as well as the appointing

authority that his character and antecedents qualify him for

appointment. It was also stated that suppression of material facts

would disqualify the candidate from being considered for appointment.

5. It was pleaded that the Petitioner was involved in

Cr.No.92 of 2010 on the file of Avanigadda P.S., registered for the

offence punishable under Section 341 and 323 IPC which was

numbered as C.C.No.60 of 2010 before Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Avanigadda. It was stated that after a lapse of 14 years,

the petitioner gave representation for appointment. Further, reliance

was placed on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Vs Anil Kanwariya

1

to justify the rejection of the petitioner's candidature.

1

AIRONLINE 2021 SC 728

6

6. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri

S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for the Respondents.

7. The recruitment notification in question was issued on

30.12.2008 and the criminal case i.e., Cr.No.92 of 2010 on the file of

Avanigadda P.S., was registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 341 and 323 R/w Section 34 IPC against the Petitioner.

The same was numbered as C.C.No.60 of 2010 before the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda. The said criminal case

settled before Lok Adalat on 11.12.2010. On account of involvement in

the criminal case, the provisional selection of the Petitioner was

cancelled on 25.5.2011.

8. On a reference to resolve conflicting opinions regarding the

issues of suppression of criminal case, a three-Judge Bench of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,

2

summarised their conclusion on what factors to be taken into

consideration before rejecting the candidature of an individual for

suppression of criminal case. The relevant Paragraphs of the

Judgment with emphasis at appropriate places are extracted below;

2

2016 (8) SCC 471

7

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and

reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to

conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,

whether before or after entering into service must be true and there

should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or

cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the

employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if

any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the

Government Orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee,

at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of

involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had

already been recorded before filling of the application/verification

form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of

the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been

recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty

offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent

unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore

such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the

lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not

trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate

services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving

moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical

ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of

8

reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all

relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take

appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration

truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the

right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint

the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character

verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial

nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its

discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such

case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to

multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume

significance and an employer may pass appropriate order

cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a

person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not

be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the

candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse

impact and the appointing authority would take decision after

considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, *holding*

departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of

termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or

submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information

attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such

information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to

be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to

knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an

9

objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.

However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of

suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was

not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or

suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

9. In a fact scenario which is closer to the facts of this case i.e.,

Commissioner of Police & Ors., Vs Sandeep Kumar

3

, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of Delhi High Court setting aside

the cancellation of selection of the Petitioner therein for non-disclosure

of involvement in criminal case for offenses under Section 354/34 IPC,

as the said case was later compromised. The relevant portion of the

Judgment is extracted below with emphasis at appropriate places.

“The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection

to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On

03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first

time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal

case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised

in 1998 and he had been acquitted.

On 02.08.2001 a show cause notice was issued to him

asking the respondent to show cause why his candidature

for the post should not be cancelled because he had

concealed the fact of his involvement in the aforesaid

criminal case and had made a wrong statement in his

3

(2011) 4 SCC 644

10

application form. The respondent submitted his reply on

17.08.2001 and an additional reply but the authorities were

not satisfied with the same and on 29.05.2003 cancelled his

candidature.

The respondent filed a petition before the Central

Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004.

Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which

has been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this

appeal.”

……..

“We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that

the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to

give our own opinion in the matter.

When the incident happened the respondent must

have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people

often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often

been condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not

expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people.

Hence, our approach should be to condone minor

indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand

them as criminals for the rest of their lives.

In this connection, we may refer to the character 'Jean

Valjean' in Victor Hugo's novel 'Les Miserables', in which for

committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his

hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his

11

whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a

person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.

………….

It is true that in the application form the respondent did

not mention that he was involved in a criminal case under

Section 325/34 IPC. Probably he did not mention this out of

fear that if he did so he would automatically be disqualified.

At any event, it was not such a serious offence like

murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a more lenient view

should be taken in the matter.

For the reasons above given, this Appeal has no force and it

is dismissed. No costs.”

10. In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India

4

, where the crime was

registered after submission of application ended in acquittal. After

referring to the Avatar Singh Judgment referred supra, it was held

that by a mere stroke of pen, the employee cannot be dismissed from

service. Relevant Paragraphs are extracted below;

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by

this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false

information regardless of the fact whether there is a

conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the

employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated

axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the

same time, the effect of suppression of material/false

information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the

4

(2023) 12 SCC 317

12

employer to consider all the relevant facts and

circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in

view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into

consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding

continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What

has been noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of

material/false information in a given case does not mean that

the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the

employee from service.

17. One distinguishing factor, as noticed above, is that

the criminal complaint/FIR in the present case was

registered post submission of the application form. We have

also taken into account the nature of the allegations made in

the criminal case and that the matter was of trivial nature not

involving moral turpitude. Further, the proceedings had

ended in a clean acquittal. As is clear from para 38 in Avtar

Singh, all matters cannot be put in a straitjacket and a

degree of flexibility and discretion vests with the authorities,

must be exercised with care and caution taking all the facts

and circumstances into consideration, including the nature

and type of lapse.

19. The criminal case indeed was of trivial nature and the

nature of post and nature of duties to be discharged by the

recruit has never been looked into by the competent

authority while examining the overall suitability of the

incumbent keeping in view Rule 52 of the 1987 RPF Rules to

become a member of the force. Taking into consideration the

exposition expressed by this Court in Avtar Singh in our

considered view the order of discharge passed by the

competent authority dated 24-4-2015 is not sustainable and

in sequel thereto the judgment passed by the Division Bench

of the High Court of Delhi does not hold good and deserves

to be set aside.

13

11. In Gajula Thirupathi Vs The Telangana State Level Police

5

,

the selection of Petitioner therein was cancelled on account of a

criminal case registered for offences under Sections 417, 420 and 506

IPC though said fact was disclosed in the application. The allegation

was that the Petitioner in the said case was in a relationship with the

complainant for over 4 years and promised to marry, but married

another woman. The said case was eventually settled in Lok Adalat.

On the basis of involvement in a criminal case, the selection of

Petitioner therein was rejected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the

decision of the screening committee to be unsustainable. The relevant

portion of the Judgement is extracted below;

“We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the

Screening Committee to deny appointment to the petitioner

is arbitrary and was justifiably set aside by the learned Single

Judge of the High Court. In our view, the Division Bench of

the High Court fell in error in setting aside the order of the

learned Single Judge. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.”

26. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High

Court is set aside. The order passed by the learned Single

Judge is restored. There is no order as to costs.”

5

CIVIL APPEAL No.8059 OF 2026, dated 21.05.2026

14

12. In Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P.

6

, an aspirant for the post of

police constable was embroiled in a criminal case registered for

offence under Sections 324,352 and 504 IPC and suppressed this

aspect in affidavit to be furnished regarding involvement in criminal

case. Though the petitioner therein was acquitted during the selection

process, his selection was cancelled for non-disclosure. After

analysing the Judgements on this aspect, it was held that the nature of

criminal, nature of acquittal, timing etc., have to be taken into

consideration.

“The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the

criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgement of

acquittal; the nature of the query in the

application/verification form; the contents of the character

verification reports; the socio economic strata of the

individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate;

the nature of consideration and the contents of the

cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial

aspects which should enter the judicial verdict in adjudging

suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be

ordered.”

13. The above case law requires the authorities to examine the

nature of criminal cases, nature of acquittal and the impact on the

nature of employment. A mechanical order of rejection without

6

2024 INSC 131

15

analyzing the above aspects was deprecated. In the present case, the

criminal case was after the application for the recruitment notification

and the said case was settled before Lok Adalat before the

cancellation of provisional selection. The offence was a trivial one and

therefore was compounded.

14. The next aspect is the delay of 12-13 years in approaching the

Court. This delay is only to the detriment of the Petitioner and is not to

the advantage of the Department. As no third party rights are being

effected, the Respondent authorities can re-examine the case of

Petitioner for appointment.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

with following directions;

(i) The Respondent authorities shall re-examine the issue of

selection of the Petitioner to the post of Police Constable in the

light of the Judgments referred supra and communicate

appropriate decision with reasons to the Petitioner.

(ii) Considering the time gap, the Respondents are at liberty to

seek for fresh antecedent’s report of the Petitioner.

(iii) In the event of selection of Petitioner, the Respondents are

at liberty to fix seniority and pay with effect from the date of

appointment only.

16

(iv) The time for compliance of above directions is three (03)

months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(v) No order as to costs

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

Date: .09.2026

17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.2790 of 2025

Date: .09.2026

IS