Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Parvaiz Ahmad Dar vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 30 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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