http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUSHIL KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  New  Delhi  made  on September 6,  1995 in  OA No. 1756/9l. The admitted position is  that  the  respondent  appeared  for  recruitment  as  a Constable in  Delhi Police Services in the year l989-90 with Roll No.65790.  Though he  was found  physically fit through endurance test,  written test and interview and was selected provisionally, his  selection was subject to verification of character;  and   antecedents  by   the  local   police.  On verification, it  was found  that his  atecedents were  such that his  appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. Accordingly,  his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings  dated   December  18,   1990   culminating   in cancellation of his provisional selection he filed OA in the Central  Administrative   Tribunal.  The   Tribunal  in  the impugned order  allowed the  application on  the ground that since the respondent had been discharged and/or acquitted of the offence  punishable under Section 304 IPC, under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and under Section 394 IPC, he cannot be denied the right of appointment to the post under the State.  The question is: whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is seen that verification of the  character and  antecedents is  one of  the important criteria to  test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a  post under  the State.  Though he was physically found fit,  Passed   the  written   test  and  interview  and  was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of  such record  as a  Constable to  the  disciplined forces The  view taken  by the  appointing authority  in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The Tribunal, therefore,  was wholly  unjustified in  giving the direction for  reconsideration of  his case.  Though he  was discharged or  acquitted of  the criminal offences, the same has nothing  to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a  service and  not the  actual result  thereof.  If  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

actual result  happened to  be in  a particular way, the law will  take  care  of  the  consequences.  The  consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. Appointing authority,  therefore, has  rightly focussed this aspect and  found him  not desirable  to appoint  him to the service.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the Tribunal stands set aside. No costs.