Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC ruling that State can't deny job over mere registration of FIR

The Supreme Court recently upheld a Kerala High Court ruling where it had held that the State cannot disqualify a person from entering government service only because of registration of a criminal case against him. [State of Kerala & Ors. v Durgadas & Anr]

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra on November 14 dismissed the State of Kerala's appeal against the High Court verdict. Earlier, the Court had stayed the High Court ruling.

In the final order, the Bench said the High Court had passed the decision on the facts and circumstances of the case before it.

"In this view of the matter, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the judgment of the High Court," the Supreme Court said.

The High Court had in September 2023 ruled that while verifying a candidate's character and antecedents, the State cannot merely restate allegations made by the prosecution in a criminal case to hold that a service candidate is "bad" or "unsuitable for the post".

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen, which also clarified that an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a candidate to join service.

The High Court had passed the ruling on State government's appeal against a Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order.

The KAT had directed the State to allow a man to join the India Reserve Battalion as constable following his acquittal in a criminal case filed by his estranged wife.

After High Court upheld the KAT decision, the State moved Supreme Court.

It cited Supreme Court's decision in Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India and Ors.

In that ruling, the Court had noted that "neither the gravity of the criminal offence nor the ultimate acquittal therein was relevant when considering whether a probationer who suppresses a material fact (of his being involved in a criminal case, in the personal information furnished to the employer), is fit to be continued as a probationer."

In the present case, the Bench, however, said the position of law in Satish Chandra Yadav does not impinge upon the Kerala High Court decision.

However, it also kept open the question of law raised by State.

"The question of law raised by Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, learned counsel for the petitioner-State is kept open for being considered in an appropriate case," it added.

Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Mohammed Sadique TA, Thulasi K Raj, Aparna Menon and Chinnu Maria Antony appeared for the constable.

Advocates Harshad V Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot and Ashly Harshad appeared for the State of Kerala.

[Read order]