WP(C) No.1178/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 23.05.2025 Pronounced on: 30.05.2025 WP(C) No.1178/2020 PARVAIZ AHMAD DAR ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has sought a direction upon the respondents to maintain his selection in terms of order bearing No.Rly/Estt/Eng-SPO/2020/2458-59 dated 19.02.2020, issued by respondent No.3, with a further direction to issue engagement order in his favour and to allow him to join on the post of Special Police Officer (SPO). 2) The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that pursuant to the advertisement notice bearing endorsement No.Estt/GRPJK/SPO/Eng-2019/9579-83 dated 27.11.2019, the petitioner applied for the post of SPO in Railway Police, Kashmir. After undergoing selection process, the petitioner was selected as SPO in terms of selection list bearing No.Rlys/CS/SPO-List/20/1324 dated WP(C) No.1178/2020 28.01.2020 and his name figured at serial No.45 of the said list. Vide notice dated 19.02.2020, which was published in the newspaper, the selected candidates were requested to report to the SSP, Railway Police, Kashmir, along with documents in original by 4th March, 2020, for verification of their original documents. It was further provided in the said notice that engagement orders of selected candidates will be issued separately after receipt of clearance in respect of their character antecedents and subject to genuineness of their original documents. 3) It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted all his original documents along with other relevant material before the respondents and was waiting for issuance of formal engagement order in his favour. 4) The respondents, it seems, took up the matter with regard to verification of character antecedents of the selected candidates with CID Headquarters, J&K, in terms of their communication dated 25.02.2020 and vide communication dated 24.06.2020 of the CID Headquarters, it was intimated that the petitioner is involved in case FIR No.66/2018 for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 336, 341, 427, 332 and 307 of RPC registered with Police Station, Bijbehara, WP(C) No.1178/2020 and the challan in respect of the said FIR stands laid before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bijbehara, on 16.03.2020. In the face of the aforesaid report relating to character antecedents of the petitioner, the respondents did not issue engagement order in his favour. 5) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents on the grounds that once after undergoing selection process, he has been selected by the respondents, the engagement order in his favour cannot be withheld by the respondents. It has been further submitted that unless the petitioner is proved guilty by the competent court of law, mere pendency of challan against him would not disentitle him from being engaged as SPO. It has been claimed that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. It is being contended by the petitioner that he belongs to a very poor family and on the basis of compassion, he deserves to be engaged as an SPO. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 7) The short question which is required to be considered in this case is whether pendency of challan in respect of the criminal offences against the petitioner would disentitle him from being engaged as SPO after having been selected for the WP(C) No.1178/2020 said post. In this regard, if we have a look at the selection order issued in favour of the petitioner and 97 other candidates, it is clear that the said order has been made subject to certain conditions. These include production of original documents and verification thereof as also the clearance in respect of character antecedents from District Police authorities and CID organization. 8) So, the selection of the petitioner and other selected candidates was made subject to certain conditions, one of which was clearance of character antecedents from the relevant authorities. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is involved in case FIR No.66/2018 of Police Station, Bijbehara, in which challan has already been filed before the competent court. Thus, the character antecedents of the petitioner have not been found to be clear by the authorities concerned. The aforesaid condition prescribed in the selection order of the petitioner is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present case. On this ground alone, the petitioner cannot claim to be engaged as an SPO in Railway Police. 9) That apart, if we have a look at the allegations made in the challan arising out of FIR No.66/2018, the same are very serious in nature. As per the allegations made in the challan, copy whereof has been placed on record by the petitioner WP(C) No.1178/2020 himself, on 08.05.2018, he along with co-accused is alleged to have raised slogans on National Highway, pelted stones on the vehicles plying on the road and launched an attack on CRPF personnel which resulted in injuries to one of the CRPF constables. It is also alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused was enforcing a bandh. 10) The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of the detention order dated 24.07.2018, which had resulted in his preventive detention under the provisions of Public Safet Act. As per the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is on record, the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in an incident dated 25th May, 2018, in which he, along with his associates, was found armed with stones, lathies and petrol bombs and they had launched attack on police and security personnel. It seems that the detaining authority found the activities of the petitioner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, accordingly, he was detained, whereafter his detention came to be quashed in terms of order dated 12.11.2018 passed in HCP No.202/2018. The detention order, it seems, was quashed on technical ground of the petitioner having not been made aware about his right to make a representation against the order of detention. 11) In the face of aforesaid serious allegations against the petitioner, it was not at all desirable to engage him in a WP(C) No.1178/2020 disciplined force like Police. The UT of Jammu and Kashmir has been facing the scourge of terrorism and militancy for the last 35 years which is being fought at various levels by the police and the security forces. If the people who have doubtful credentials and have indulged in launching attacks on security forces and police in the previous past, are inducted in police force, the same would result in compromising the security of innocent people of this Union Territory. Therefore, the decision of respondents in not issuing the engagement order in favour of the petitioner cannot be termed either illegal or irrational. 12) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & another vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685, while dealing with the case of a candidate who was not selected in the police force on account of his criminal antecedents, observed as under: “28. 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 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 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 WP(C) No.1178/2020 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 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. At the same time, the Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with even hand.” 13) From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that a person who is involved in criminal activities and the law enforcement agencies had to resort to stringent measures like preventive detention to deter him from indulging in subversive activities, cannot be, by any stretch of reasoning, suitable and appropriate for being appointed as a member of the police force. Therefore, the decision of the respondents not to issue engagement order in favour of the petitioner does not deserve to be interfered with by this Court. 14) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall cease to be in operation. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 03:49