Supreme Court Restores Telangana Police Constable Aspirant’s Candidature, Terms Recruitment Board’s Decision Arbitrary

New Delhi, June 2026 : In a significant ruling on public employment and the assessment of criminal antecedents, the Supreme Court has restored the candidature of a Telangana police constable aspirant whose appointment was denied because of a criminal case linked to a failed relationship that was later settled before a Lok Adalat.

A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan allowed an appeal filed by Gajula Thirupathi and set aside a judgment of the Telangana High Court’s Division Bench, which had upheld the cancellation of his provisional selection for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (SCTPC).

The case stemmed from a criminal complaint registered against Thirupathi under Sections 417, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged by a woman who alleged that he had promised to marry her but later married another woman. The dispute was subsequently resolved through a compromise before a Lok Adalat in 2015, leading to the compounding of the case.

When applying for the police constable position, Thirupathi disclosed the existence of the criminal case in his application. However, despite the full disclosure and the settlement of the matter, the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board cancelled his provisional selection. The authorities concluded that the allegations involved moral turpitude and considered him unsuitable for service in the police force.

Challenging the decision, Thirupathi approached the courts, eventually taking the matter to the Supreme Court after the High Court Division Bench ruled against him.

In its judgment, the apex court emphasised that while government employers have the authority to examine the suitability of candidates even after acquittal, discharge, or settlement of criminal cases, such decisions must be based on objective material and cannot be arbitrary.

The Bench observed that when such decisions are subjected to judicial review, authorities must demonstrate that there is material on record indicating that an offence involving moral turpitude was actually committed and that there exists evidence against the candidate despite an acquittal or discharge.

The court noted that Thirupathi had made a truthful and complete disclosure of the criminal proceedings and that there was no allegation that he had concealed any material fact from the recruiting agency.

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the reasoning adopted by the recruitment authorities, particularly their conclusion that the compromise before the Lok Adalat amounted to an admission of guilt. Rejecting this interpretation, the Bench said there was no factual basis for such an inference.

According to the court, the assumption that a person enters into a compromise because he is guilty was not only unsupported by evidence but also irrational. The judges observed that such a conclusion was “completely perverse” and contrary to logic.

The ruling also addressed the broader social context surrounding relationships between consenting adults. The Bench cautioned authorities against drawing adverse conclusions about an individual’s character solely because a pre-marital relationship did not culminate in marriage.

Highlighting changing social realities, the court observed that pre-marital relationships are increasingly common and that a consensual relationship between two unmarried adults cannot, by itself, be treated as a reflection of poor character or moral misconduct.

The judges further noted that not every romantic relationship results in marriage and that the mere failure of a relationship to culminate in marriage does not automatically establish cheating or deception on the part of either individual.

The court found no evidence suggesting that the compromise before the Lok Adalat had been secured through coercion, intimidation, or undue pressure. In the absence of such material, the recruitment authorities had no valid basis to infer adverse character traits or moral unfitness from the settled criminal case.

Holding that the Screening Committee’s decision to deny appointment was arbitrary, the Supreme Court endorsed the view earlier taken by a single judge of the Telangana High Court, who had directed reconsideration of Thirupathi’s appointment.

Consequently, the apex court restored the single-judge order, allowed the appeal, and set aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench judgment, paving the way for reconsideration of Thirupathi’s appointment to the police force.