APHC010050772025

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: 2955/2025

Between:

1. KORASEEKA KARUNA PRASAD,, S/O K.N.MURTHY,

C/O.D.N.NO.205,YSR NAGAR, NIDADAVOLE, ELURU,

ELURU DISTRICT(WEST GODAVARI)

...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, ANDH RA PRADESH.

5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP

OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRAINING

TRAINING DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR

2

DISTRICT.

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 tomay 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 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 may be pleased to direct the

respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner

dated 13.08.2024 forthwith without any delay pending disposal of

the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following:

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.2955 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 31.10.2011. The Petitioner had applied for the post

of SCT PC (Civil) (Men) and was allotted Registration No.171339.

The Petitioner had successfully qualified in the written test and

physical test and was provisionally selected for the said post vide

Proceedings dated 07.11.2024.

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

in Cr.No.132 of 2011 dated 11.11.2011 on the file of Undrajavaram

Police Station, West Godavari District, which was registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 461 and 380 IPC. The said

criminal case was numbered as C.C.No.58 of 2012 before

4

II Additional First Class Magistrate, Tanuku. Subsequently,

the criminal case was settled before Lok Adalat on 04.02.2012.

On the basis of involvement in the criminal case, the provisional

selection of the Petitioner was rejected in the year 2013 after due

show-cause notice. Though, the Petitioner gave representations to

the Respondents, Hence, the Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I

Sri S. Raju would contend that the Petitioner had filed the present

Writ Petition after a lapse of 12-13 years and there is no explanation

from the Petitioner for the delay in the Writ Petition. It is further

submitted that the vacancies notified under the recruitment

notification were filled up and there are no vacancies under the said

notification. Learned counsel further submitted that the notifications

were issued for the subsequent years and the Petitioner at this

length of time cannot seek for appointment.

5. Heard Sri Regulagadda Venkatesh, learned counsel for the

Petitioner and Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-I appearing for the Respondents.

5

6. There are two issues that need to be addressed i.e.,

correctness of the cancellation of provisional selection of the

Petitioner and the delay in filing the present Writ Petition.

7. On the first issue, the recruitment notification in question was

issued on 31.10.2011 and the criminal case i.e., Cr.No.132 of 2011

against the Petitioner was registered on 11.11.2011. The same was

numbered as C.C.No.58 of 2012 before II Additional First Class

Magistrate, Tanuku and was settled before Lok Adalat on

04.02.2012 and the Petitioner was acquitted of the offence under

Section 411 IPC. The registration of the criminal case was after the

notification and the said case was settled before Lok Adalat before

the issuance of show cause-notice for cancellation of provisional

selection on 05.01.2013 by Respondent No.2. The offence was a

trivial one and therefore was compounded.

8. Though, there is no clarity as to the date of application of the

Petitioner i.e., whether the same is prior to registration of criminal

case or after, the fact remains that the offence is a trivial one and the

de facto complainant voluntarily got the case compounded in

Lok Adalat. The compromise in the Lok Adalat cannot be construed

as an admission of guilt by the Petitioner, but should be seen as an

6

act to make peace with the issue rather than going through the

rigour of trial.

9. 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.,

1

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

Judgement with emphasis at appropriate places are extracted

below;

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.

1

2016 (8) SCC 471

7

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 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.

8

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 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.

9

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri

or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be

attributable to him.”

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

Commissioner of Police & Ors., Vs Sandeep Kumar

2

, 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 application form. The respondent submitted his reply

2

(2011) 4 SCC 644

10

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 whole life. The modern approach should be

to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all

his life.

………….

11

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.”

11. In Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 317

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

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

12

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

12. In Gajula Thirupathi Vs The Telangana State Level Police

3

,

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.”

3

CIVIL APPEAL No.8059 OF 2026, dated 21.05.2026

14

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

4

, 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.”

4

2024 INSC 131

15

14. 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

analyzing the above aspects were deprecated.

15. 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.

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

with the 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

IS

17

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT PETITION No.2955 of 2025

Date: .09.2026

IS