DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.versusSUSHIL KUMAR

               DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS                                 A
                   CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.
                                      v.
                              SUSHIL KUMAR

                             OCTOBER 4, 1996
                                                                                B
              [K RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]

         Se1vice Law :

      Recrnitment of Police Constables-Antecedents of candidate-Can-            C
didate found fit and selected provisionally-Selection subject to verification
of character and antecedents-Antecedellts were found not suitable for ap-
pointment-Held, verification of character and antecedents is one of the
important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the
post-Appointing authority has rightly found the candidate not desirable to
appoint him to the service.                                                     D
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13231 of
1996.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal at Delhi in O.A. No. 1756 of 1991.                        E
         P.A. Choudhary, D.V. Padurpuja and B.K. Prasad for the Appel-
lants.

         Sanjay Kapur and Mrs. Shubhra Kapur for the Respondent.
                                                                                F
         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Leave granted.

         We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

       This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central G
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi made on September 6, 1995 in OA
No. 1756/91. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for
recruitment as a Constable in the Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90
with Roll No. 65790. Though he was found physically fit through endurance
test, written test and interview and was selected provisionally; his selection H
                                     199
    200                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C:.R.
A was subject to verification of character and antecedents by the local police.
  On verification, it was found that his antecedents were such that his
  appointment to the post of Constable was not found desirable. According-
  ly, 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
B 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 324 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?
C 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 antece-
  dent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a
D person of such record as Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken
  by the appointment 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
E candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If
  the 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.
F
          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands
    set aside. No costs.

    R.P.                                                     Appeal allowed.