STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERSversusABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR

                      [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1133                            1133


        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS                             A
                                 v.
                    ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR
                  (Civil Appeal No. 11356 of 2018)
                        NOVEMBER 26, 2018                              B
                   [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
         DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
       Service law: Appointment – Antecedents and suitability of the
candidate – Consideration of – On facts, the respondent participated
in the selection process for posts of subedars, platoon commanders     C
and inspectors of police – Disclosure made in an affidavit that a
criminal case is pending against him – Within four days compromise
entered into between the parties and application for compounding
of the offences allowed – Thereafter, the respondent was selected
in the written examination, however, after considering his character   D
verification report, his candidature was rejected – Writ petition
thereagainst allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court – Said
order upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held: Even after
the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer would be well
within his rights to consider the antecedents and the suitability of
the candidate – Employer can certainly take into account the job       E
profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal
was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit
of doubt or as a result of composition – On facts, nothing on record
to suggest that the decision of rejecting the candidature of           F
respondent was actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other
count – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, as on the date when the
respondent had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.       G
Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit disclosing
such pendency was filed. Even after the disclosure is made by a
candidate, the employer would be well within his rights to consider
the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so
considering, the employer can certainly take into account the job
                                                                       H
                             1133
1134           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A     profile for which the selection is undertaken, the severity of the
       charges levelled against the candidate and whether the acquittal
       in question was an honourable acquittal or was merely on the
       ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.
       [Para 15][1145-B-D]
 B            1.2 There is nothing on record to suggest that the decision
       taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature
       of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered
       on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of
       the respondent was absolutely correct and did not call for any
       interference. The decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well
 C     as by the Division Bench are set aside. [Para 17][1145-G-H]
             Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v.
             Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432;
             State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan
             (2015) 2 SCC 591; Union Territory, Chandigarh
 D           Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and
             another (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Avtar
             Singh v. Union of India and others (2016) 8 SCC 471 :
             [2016] 7 SCR 445; Mohammed Imran v. State of
             Maharashtra and others 2018 (10) JT 15 - referred
 E           to.
                         Case Law Reference
       [2013] 13 SCR 432        referred to                    Para 10
       (2015) 2 SCC 591         referred to                    Para 10
       [2018] 1 SCR 112         referred to                    Para 10
 F
       [2016] 7 SCR 445         referred to                    Para 10
       2018 (10) JT 15          referred to                    Para 10
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11356
       of 2018
 G          From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2015 of the High Court
       of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 132 of 2015.
             Rajesh Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
            Siddhartha Dave, (A.C.), Ms. Jantiben AO, Advs. for the
       Respondent.
 H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                              1135


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted. This appeal
challenges correctness of the judgment and order dated 22.09.2015
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal
No.132 of 2015.
       2. In 2012, the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh         B
invited applications for filling up the posts of Subedars, Platoon
Commanders and Inspectors of Police. Clause 1.13 of the advertisement
dealt with character verification of the candidates. True translation of
said clause 1.13 along with Note appended thereto was to the following
effect:                                                                       C
      “1.13 Appointment: The character verification shall be carried
      out about the selected candidates and the appointment only of the
      candidates found in the selection list upon finding them fit in
      character. The medical examination of the candidates also shall
      be conducted. The candidate to be medically fit for the entitlement     D
      of the appointment is also required.
      Note: To save time and for the convenience, the verification form
      is sent earlier to the candidates declared fit to sit in the physical
      fitness examination, which the candidates have to submit after
      filling up and the character and earlier verification of all the        E
      candidates to appear in interview is made. The candidate who is
      not selected, his form will not used further. The candidates should
      fill up full and correct information in the character verification
      form. They should not provide any false information, incomplete
      information and semi true information. They should not conceal
      any information as well. Particularly it is required to fill up the     F
      correct information in column no.12. Now according to the new
      guidelines of Madhya Pradesh Government regarding character
      verification, to give the undertaking to this effect is required that
      he has not concealed any fact in the details given by him earlier
      about the criminal cases.”                                              G
      3. The respondent participated in the selection process and as
mandated, tendered an affidavit on 22.12.2012 disclosing following
information:

                                                                              H
1136            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           “I affirm on oath that Case No.592/06 under Sections 323, 325,
             506, 34 was registered in Police Station Madhav Nagar against
             me the deponent. I the deponent myself had come to the court. I
             was never arrested. The aforesaid case is pending in the Court.
             In addition no criminal record is registered in any police station
             anywhere in India, nor has the deponent convicted by the Court in
 B
             any criminal case.”
              4. According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006
       was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered. However, it
       appears that within four days, a compromise was entered into between
       the original complainant and the respondent and an application for
 C     compounding the offences was filed under Section 320 Code of Criminal
       Procedure. True translation of relevant portions of the proceedings dated
       26.12.2012 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ujjain, M.P. is as
       under:
                  “The case was perused. This case is listed for the presence
 D           of the accused. The accused was taken in judicial custody. …….
                  The bond forfeiture amount on behalf of the accused was
             deposited in compliance with the order, vide receipt No.85. The
             receipt was given to the accused….

 E               At this very stage, Rajiv Rawat submitted an application for
             compromise under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and expressed that a
             compromise has been made between him and the accused persons
             so the permission for compounding be granted. Copy of the
             application was given to ADPO. The remaining accused persons
             with Sashank Advocate are present. I heard the matter regarding
 F           compromise. The case was perused.
                  It is clear from perusal that the case being of offences under
             Sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-2, IPC is fit for compromise.
             The present complainant is a competent party for the compromise.
             Hence, the permission for compounding can be granted.
 G
                 The parties submitted a deed of compromise, jointly signed
             having photographs. The parties were identified by their counsel.
             Both the parties have stated that the compromise was arrived at
             voluntarily without any fear and pressure. Hence, the application
             for compounding was allowed after verification. As a result of
 H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                                1137
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      the composition, the accused persons are acquitted of the charges         A
      under Sections 294, 325/34, 323, 506 Part-2 IPC.
           The bail bonds of the accused persons are discharged.”
       5. The proceedings, thus, indicate that the amount of bond submitted
on the earlier occasion had been forfeited for non-compliance; that the
respondent was taken in judicial custody and that after the compromise          B
was entered into between the parties, the application for compounding
of the offences was allowed.
       6. The respondent was selected in the written examination and
was called for medical examination. Around the same time, his character
verification was also undertaken. After due consideration of character          C
verification report, the candidature of the respondent was however
rejected vide order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the Additional Director
General of Police (Selection/Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Bhopal.
Said order observed as under:-
      “3-B The services of the persons seeking uniform service/                 D
      employment comes under the category different from other
      services and candidates. The duty of the candidates selected is
      to maintain law and order of the State and to protect the life and
      property of the public. The high moral conduct and not to be
      involved in the criminal activities is required for the police service.   E
      3-C According to the principles about the excellent conduct with
      the Government in respect of the Government Servants, the
      Government Servants should be of high character. Since the
      officers of the Police Department are responsible to control the
      persons of criminal nature, it is not proper to appoint the persons       F
      of criminal record in public interest.”
       7. The respondent being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.9412 of
2013 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore challenging
the aforesaid order dated 19.07.2013. A Single Judge of the High Court
allowed said writ petition and directed as under:
                                                                                G
      “… The petitioner shall be appointed in case his name finds place
      in the merit list and is entitled to be appointed as per merit. The
      petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits, except
      back wages.”
                                                                                H
1138             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           8. The State challenged the decision of the Single Judge by filing
       Writ Appeal No.132 of 2015, which challenge was found to be without
       any merit by the Division Bench. The view taken by the Single Judge
       was thus affirmed by the Division Bench vide its judgment and order
       dated 22.09.2015 which decision is presently under challenge.
 B            9. Since the respondent, despite being served in the matter had
       chosen not to enter appearance, this Court requested Mr. Siddhartha
       Dave, learned Advocate to assist as Amicus Curiae and appear on behalf
       of the respondent. We heard Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate
       for the State and Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Amicus Curiae for the
       respondent.
 C
              10. It was submitted by Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned Advocate
       that in terms of Rule 12(3) of M.P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted)
       Services Recruitment Rules, 1996, inclusion of a candidate’s name in
       the list would not confer any right to appointment and that a candidate
       had to be found suitable in all respects before he could be appointed.
 D     Relying on the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New
       Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh1, State of Madhya Pradesh and
       others v. Parvez Khan 2 and Union Territory, Chandigarh
       Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another 3 he
       submitted that the candidature of the respondent was rightly rejected
 E     and there being no allegation of mala fides, no interference with the
       decision in question was called for. Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned Amicus
       Curiae, on the other hand, submitted that by virtue of Section 320(8) of
       Cr.P.C. composition of an offence would have the effect of an acquittal.
       He further submitted that the respondent had not suppressed any
       information and he having been acquitted, the High Court was right in
 F     accepting his challenge. Mr. Dave further relied upon the decisions of
       this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others 4 and In
       Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and others5.
             11. In Mehar Singh (supra) the selection in question was for the
       post of Constable (Executive). The offences alleged against Mehar
 G     Singh were under Sections 341, 323 and 427 of the IPC. He had arrived
       1
         (2013) 7 SCC 685
       2
         (2015) 2 SCC 591
       3
         (2018) 1 SCC 797
       4
         (2016) 8 SCC 471
       5
         In Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018, decided on 12.10.2018.
 H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                                1139
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

at a compromise with the complainant and in terms of the compromise,            A
Mehar Singh and other co-accused were acquitted of the offences under
Sections 323, 341 and 427 of the IPC on 30.01.2009. In the selection
which was undertaken thereafter, said Mehar Singh had disclosed the
factum regarding his involvement and his acquittal. His candidature
was, however cancelled in terms of the concerned Standing Order. The
                                                                                B
challenge raised by him was accepted by the Administrative Tribunal
and the Delhi High Court. But this Court reversed said decisions and
the observations in paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 33 to 35 of the decision of this
Court are quite relevant for the present purposes:-
      “ 23. A careful perusal of the policy leads us to conclude that the
      Screening Committee would be entitled to keep persons involved            C
      in grave cases of moral turpitude out of the police force even if
      they are acquitted or discharged if it feels that the acquittal or
      discharge is on technical grounds or not honourable. The Screening
      Committee will be within its rights to cancel the candidature of a
      candidate if it finds that the acquittal is based on some serious         D
      flaw in the conduct of the prosecution case or is the result of
      material witnesses turning hostile. It is only experienced officers
      of the Screening Committee who will be able to judge whether
      the acquitted or discharged candidate is likely to revert to similar
      activities in future with more strength and vigour, if appointed, to
      the post in a police force. The Screening Committee will have to          E
      consider the nature and extent of such person’s involvement in
      the crime and his propensity of becoming a cause for worsening
      the law and order situation rather than maintaining it. In our opinion,
      this policy framed by the Delhi Police does not merit any
      interference from this Court as its object appears to be to ensure        F
      that only persons with impeccable character enter the police force.
      24. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the
      respondents’ candidature, the Screening Committee has
      overreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are aware
      that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a            G
      departmental enquiry does not directly arise here, but, support
      can be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in
      connection with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical,
      namely, whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work
      in the department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case
                                                                                H
1140             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A            is the proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental
              proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal
              cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such
              acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit
              of doubt would not stand on a par with a clean acquittal on merit
              after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the
 B
              witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India6 this
              Court has taken a view that departmental proceedings can proceed
              even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than
              honourable.
              25. The expression “honourable acquittal” was considered by
 C            this Court in S. Samuthiram7. In that case this Court was
              concerned with a situation where disciplinary proceedings were
              initiated against a police officer. Criminal case was pending against
              him under Section 509 IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing
              Act. He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination
 D            of key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the
              criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring
              to the judgment of this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal8,
              where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a bank’s
              action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the ground
              that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him benefit of
 E            doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal, this Court
              held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
              punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings. This Court
              observed that the expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted
              of blame” and “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Criminal
 F            Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by judicial
              pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by the
              expression “honourably acquitted”. This Court expressed that
              when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the
              prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the
              charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that
 G            the accused was honourably acquitted.

       6
         AIR 1964 SC 787
       7
         (2013) 1 SCC 598
       8
         (1994) 1 SCC 541
 H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                             1141
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

  33. So far as respondent Mehar Singh is concerned, his case              A
  appears to have been compromised. It was urged that acquittal
  recorded pursuant to a compromise should not be treated as a
  disqualification because that will frustrate the purpose of the Legal
  Services Authorities Act, 1987. We see no merit in this submission.
  Compromises or settlements have to be encouraged to bring about
                                                                           B
  peaceful and amiable atmosphere in the society by according a
  quietus to disputes. They have to be encouraged also to reduce
  arrears of cases and save the litigants from the agony of pending
  litigation. But these considerations cannot be brought in here. In
  order to maintain integrity and high standard of police force, the
  Screening Committee may decline to take cognizance of a                  C
  compromise, if it appears to it to be dubious. The Screening
  Committee cannot be faulted for that.
  34. The respondents are trying to draw mileage from the fact
  that in their application and/or attestation form they have disclosed
  their involvement in a criminal case. We do not see how this fact        D
  improves their case. Disclosure of these facts in the application/
  attestation form is an essential requirement. An aspirant is
  expected to state these facts honestly. Honesty and integrity are
  inbuilt requirements of the police force. The respondents should
  not, therefore, expect to score any brownie points because of this
  disclosure. Besides, this has no relevance to the point in issue. It     E
  bears repetition to state that while deciding whether a person
  against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later
  on acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the
  police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the
  extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean             F
  acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the
  witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the
  prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar
  activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken
  by the Screening Committee created for that purpose by the Delhi
  Police. If the Screening Committee’s decision is not mala fide or        G
  actuated by extraneous considerations, then, it cannot be
  questioned.


                                                                           H
1142             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the great
             responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the
             society. People repose great faith and confidence in it. It must be
             worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to join the police
             force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have
             impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal
 B
             antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or
             discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order
             will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely
             exonerated in the case because even a possibility of his taking to
             the life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police
 C           force. The Standing Order, therefore, has entrusted the task of
             taking decisions in these matters to the Screening Committee.
             The decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final
             unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the image of the police
             force is tarnished. Instances of police personnel behaving in a
             wayward manner by misusing power are in public domain and
 D
             are a matter of concern. The reputation of the police force has
             taken a beating. In such a situation, we would not like to dilute the
             importance and efficacy of a mechanism like the Screening
             Committee created by the Delhi Police to ensure that persons
             who are likely to erode its credibility do not enter the police force.
 E           At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the
             importance of the trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates
             with an even hand.”
             12. The conclusions in Mehar Singh (supra) have been followed
       and the principles reiterated by this Court in later decisions, namely in
 F     State of M.P. v. Parvez Khan (supra) and in Union Territory,
       Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and
       another (supra).
              13. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of
       India (supra) was required to consider the difference of opinion in
 G     decisions of this Court on the question of suppression of information or
       submission of false information in the verification form on issues pertaining
       to involvement in criminal cases and the effect thereof. The law on the
       point was settled by this Court in following terms in paragraph No. 38 of
       its decision as under:

 H
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                              1143
            [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

  “38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and           A
  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            B
  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         C
  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                D
  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          E
  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.                                                                    F
  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        G
  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.
                                                                            H
1144            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B           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
 C           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.
 D           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
 E           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
 F           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
 G           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.”
             14. In Avtar Singh (supra), though this Court was principally
       concerned with the question as to non-disclosure or wrong disclosure of
 H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. ABHIJIT SINGH PAWAR                                1145
              [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

information, it was observed in paragraph 38.5 that even in cases where         A
a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer
would still have a right to consider antecedents of the candidate and
could not be compelled to appoint such candidate.
       15. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent had
applied, a criminal case was pending against him. Compromise was                B
entered into only after an affidavit disclosing such pendency was filed.
On the issue of compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal
under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., the law declared by this Court in Mehar
Singh (supra), specially in paragraphs 34 and 35 completely concludes
the issue. Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the employer
would be well within his rights to consider the antecedents and the             C
suitability of the candidate. While so considering, the employer can
certainly take into account the job profile for which the selection is
undertaken, the severity of the charges levelled against the candidate
and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or
was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or as a result of composition.     D
       16. The reliance placed by Mr. Dave, learned Amicus Curiae on
the decision of this Court in Mohammed Imran (supra) is not quite
correct and said decision cannot be of any assistance to the respondent.
In para 5 of said decision, this Court had found that the only allegation
against the appellant therein was that he was travelling in an auto-            E
rickshaw which was following the auto-rickshaw in which the prime
accused, who was charged under Section 376 IPC, was travelling with
the prosecutrix in question and that all the accused were acquitted as
the prosecutrix did not support the allegation. The decision in Mohammed
Imran (supra) thus turned on individual facts and cannot in any way be
said to have departed from the line of decisions rendered by this Court in      F
Mehar Singh (supra), Parvez Khan (supra) and Pradeep Kumar
(supra).
       17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record
to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting
the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala               G
fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of
suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct
and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal,
set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the
                                                                                H
1146                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2018] 13 S.C.R.


 A     Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by
       the respondent. No costs.
              18. Before we part, we must record our appreciation for the efforts
       put in by Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Amicus Curiae and the assistance
       rendered by him.
 B

       Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeal allowed.




 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H