At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
For the Petitioner: Mahendra Pateriya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ankit Agarwal, Govt. Advocate.
(1) This petition takes exception to the order dated 27.06.2014 (AnnexureP/5), whereby petitioner’s candidature for police department was rejected by the respondents on the ground that petitioner is not suitable for police service.
(2) Mr. Pateriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was subjected to a criminal case arising out of Crime No.90/2009. By Court order dated 10.01.2011 he is already acquitted therefrom on the basis of a compromise. Thus, there is no justification in not treating the petitioner as eligible.
(3) Prayer is opposed by Mr. Ankit Agarwal, learned G.A. for the State. He submits that suitability of petitioner is to be judged by the concerned department. Petitioner is not suitable to be appointed in a police force.
(4) No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
(5) I have heard the parties at length and perused the reco
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
(6) In the considered opinion of this Court, the point involved in this case is no more res integra. This Court in its recent order passed W.P. No.21231/2017, [Madhur vs. State of M.P.] decided on 17.04.2018 considered the question of 'eligibility' and 'suitability'. This Court opined that judicial review of question relating to 'eligibility' is very wide whereas, judicial review regarding 'suitability' is limited. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
'10. xxxx. Thus, spinal issue in the present case is whether the respondents have misused their discretion or such exercise of discretion is capricious or contrary to law. Sub rule 3 of Rule 6 of Rules of 1961 gives ample power to the Appointing/Competent Authority to examine the aspect of suitability of an employee. The said provision, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that if Appointing Authority is satisfied that a candidate is not suitable in any respect for service or post, he can take appropriate decision in this regard. In the impugned order although enabling provision of the Rules of 1961 were not quoted, the power of said authority can be traced from Sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of Rules of 1961. The question of suitability can be gone into by the Competent Authority in the te