A Single Judge Bench of Justice Partha Sarthy was hearing a petition filed by Rahul Kumar challenging the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police-6, Muzaffarpur, whereby his selection as a Constable was cancelled on account of his failure to disclose a pending criminal case.

The petitioner had applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 1 of 2023 issued by the Central Selection Board of Constable Recruitment for appointment in the Bihar Police. He cleared the written examination held on 21.08.2024 and the physical examination held on 16.01.2025. He was thereafter directed to join as a Constable in Bihar Special Armed Police-6, Muzaffarpur and joined on 01.06.2025.

After joining, the petitioner was required to fill up a verification form which specifically asked whether he had been accused in any civil or criminal case. He answered the question in the negative. During verification of his antecedents, however, the authorities found that he was an accused in Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 24 of 2016. Treating the non-disclosure as suppression and concealment of material information, the Commandant cancelled his selection by order dated 01.08.2025.

The petitioner submitted that the FIR had been registered against a large number of persons and that the allegations against him were trivial. Crucially, he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged occurrence. The case was subsequently dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj. By order dated 17.10.2025, after accepting the petitioner's guilt, the Board directed him to plant 40 trees in the premises of an Upgraded Middle School, Chhitauli, Police Station Manjhagarh, Gopalganj and look after them for one month. The Forest Department was directed to provide the trees. The Juvenile Justice Board also took into consideration that the petitioner belonged to an educated and disciplined family, that there was no negative comment or complaint against him from society and that he was not of a criminal bent of mind.

The State opposed the petition, pointing out that the criminal case had been registered as far back as 2016 and that the petitioner was admittedly aware of it. Despite this, he had answered the specific question regarding pendency of a criminal case in the negative both in the application and verification form.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, which held that suppression of “material” information presupposes that what is suppressed actually matters. The Supreme Court had further held that even where there is suppression, a candidate cannot claim an unfettered right to appointment, but the employer is required to exercise its power reasonably, objectively and having regard to the facts of the case.

Applying this principle, the High Court acknowledged that there was suppression on the petitioner's part, since he had failed to disclose the criminal case. However, the Court noted several circumstances which required consideration: the petitioner was one of 85 accused persons in the FIR; he was a juvenile when the alleged offence took place; the allegations against him were not serious; and the Juvenile Justice Board had ultimately dealt with the matter by directing him to plant and maintain 40 trees.

The Court also noted that the petitioner's failure to disclose the case may have been motivated by a fear of automatic disqualification from government employment. The Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner “can at no level be said to be serious in nature.” It further referred to the Supreme Court's observation that the modern approach should be to “condone such indiscretions on part of young persons instead of branding them as a criminal all their life.”

Taking into account the petitioner's age, his conduct, the nature of the allegations and the observations recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Court held that the cancellation of his selection required reconsideration by the authorities. Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Commandant, Bihar Special Armed Police-6, Muzaffarpur.

The respondents were directed to pass fresh orders after taking into consideration the observations made by the High Court, within four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, A.C. to AAG-9

For the C.S.B.C.: Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate; Mr. Binod Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, Advocate