Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"Supreme Court Directs State to Consider Appointment of Constable, Says 'No Suppression of Material Information'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has directed the State of West Bengal to consider the appointment of a respondent as a constable in the West Bengal Police Force. The Court stated that there was "no suppression of material information" by the respondent, thereby overturning the State's argument against his appointment.

The Bench, consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered the judgment earlier today. The case revolved around the State's appeal against a High Court judgment that had initially directed the appointment of the respondent.

The Supreme Court observed that the verification roll used for the recruitment process was "vague" and did not specifically ask about pending criminal cases. "The respondent had answered 'No' to a question about being 'arrested, detained, or convicted,' which the Court deemed appropriate given the phrasing of the question," the judgment read.

Further, the Court noted that the respondent was acquitted in a criminal case that "did not involve heinous or serious offences or moral turpitude." The Court stated, "The prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the respondent."

In its decision, the Court also referred to the case of "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471" to emphasize the guidelines for dealing with suppression of information and the effect of conviction/acquittal on employment.

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order and directed the State to consider the respondent's case for appointment within four weeks. However, the Court clarified that the respondent would only be entitled to "notional benefits," including continuity in service and pay fixation, but not salary and back wages until the date of his appointment.

Date of Decision: 22 August 2023

State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Mitul Kumar Jana       

Latest Legal News