The rejection of a selected UP Police constable candidate over a pending criminal case has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court, which held that police department instructions on character verification cannot override the 1958 Government Order that still governs character certificates on first appointment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: Setting aside the order rejecting the candidature of a selected UP Police constable candidate over a pending criminal case, the Allahabad High Court has held that instructions issued by the Director General of Police on character verification will not override the Government Order dated April 28, 1958, and has directed the appointing authority to pass a fresh order after independent consideration [Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others].
Allowing the writ petition, a single-judge Bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam did not decide whether the petitioner should be appointed, and it expressed no view on the criminal case, in which the allegations are untested and the petitioner is presumed innocent.
Rule 16, The 1958 Order And The DGP Letter
Character verification must precede the appointment letter and training under Rule 16 of the UP Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015, which declares a candidate unfit if an adverse fact comes to light. The Court noted that the rule sets out no criteria or procedure for deciding unfitness. Paragraph 34(ja) of the DGP’s letter treats a charge-sheeted case as ground to declare a candidate unfit, whereas Note (a) of the 1958 Government Order provides:
“A conviction need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character.”
On that footing, the Court held that the 1958 Order still holds the field for issuing character certificates in cases of first employment and that the DGP’s instructions do not override it.
How The Petitioner Came To Court
Selected in the UP Police Constable (Civil Police) Direct Recruitment, 2023, the petitioner stood at serial number 90 of the select list. At character verification he disclosed, by affidavit, one pending case: Case Crime No. 100 of 2022 at Police Station Dubhar, Ballia, under Sections 323, 324, 352, 452 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, in which a charge sheet was filed on November 15, 2022. Though allotted Prayagraj for the Joint Training Course, he was not permitted to join.
His earlier writ petition was disposed of on October 17, 2025, with a direction to decide his representation; the authority rejected it on November 25, 2025, relying on the DGP’s letter dated April 5, 2025 and the 1958 Government Order. In its counter affidavit, the State said the District Magistrate, Ballia, had twice declined to recommend character verification, and that the Joint Director (Prosecution) considered the case to involve moral turpitude.
Why The Rejection Could Not Stand
According to the Court, the rejection order simply accepted the recommendations of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, with no independent consideration of the nature of the charges. The FIR, lodged on July 2, 2022, contains general allegations without a specific role assigned to the petitioner, it noted, and the trial had not concluded after more than four years. The appointing authority must consider the reports and then decide independently, it observed, and the petitioner cannot be denied appointment merely because of a criminal case.
It reproduced the conclusions in Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471, among them those on a trivial criminal case truthfully declared in the verification form, where the employer may appoint the candidate in its discretion subject to the outcome of the case. Rakesh Kumar Verma and Umesh Chand were relied on, and the decisions cited by the State were distinguished.
The Order
The writ petition was allowed and the order dated November 25, 2025 set aside. Respondent No. 3 must pass a fresh order after reconsidering the matter in light of the judgments discussed, expeditiously and preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
Case Details: Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ A No. 711 of 2026. Bench: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam. Reserved on August 10, 2026; pronounced on September 28, 2026.
Appearances: Advocates Abhishek Giri and Shaurya Sharma for the petitioner; Chief Standing Counsel for the State.