An Analysis of Judicial Precedents Upholding the Right to Public Employment and Remedial Measures When Candidates Face Discrimination Due to Criminal Allegations
By Adv. Aaditya Bhatt
Introduction
The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the principle that once an FIR is quashed, it cannot be a basis for denying public employment. Furthermore, courts have established that when candidates are wrongfully denied appointments citing pendency of FIRs, they may be accommodated through the creation of supernumerary posts even if all regular positions have been filled. This article explores the extensive jurisprudence surrounding this issue, analyzing landmark judgments that establish the legal framework governing quashed FIRs, public employment eligibility, and remedial measures.
Legal Framework: Understanding FIRs and Their Impact on Public Employment
Nature and Legal Significance of FIRs
An FIR (First Information Report) merely represents information about an alleged offense reported to the police, which triggers an investigation. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2022 emphasized that “FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence. Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment.”
The court further emphasized that “A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise upon a trial conducted as per the law,” and that this presumption “cannot be eclipsed in any other collateral process or for any other purpose.”
Constitutional Safeguards in Public Employment
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court explicitly stated that denying benefits to citizens based on pending FIRs makes “an irrelevant fact a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be discarded.”
Judicial Position on Quashed FIRs and Pending Criminal Cases
Tripura High Court’s Landmark Ruling (2018)
In a significant 2018 judgment, the Tripura High Court established a clear precedent on quashed FIRs. The court held that “the FIR once registered has been quashed by the Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC, no inference can be drawn to impute any adverse antecedents which in any manner may deprive an individual from seeking public employment.”
The case involved a petitioner whose selection for a Group D post was cancelled due to an FIR registered against him under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. After the FIR was quashed by the court, finding it to be fabricated, the court directed that “no adverse inference should be drawn to implicate the petitioner,” and that his candidature should be considered for appointment.
J&K High Court on Pending Criminal Cases (2025)
In a February 2025 ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that “the mere pendency of a criminal case does not disqualify an individual from being appointed to a government post or carrying out their duties.”
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary ruled that “a person facing trial cannot be denied employment solely based on an unproven charge,” upholding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The court referenced the J&K Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions, 1997, noting that since the respondent had disclosed the pending case and the CID verification report had no adverse findings, there was no legal ground to cancel the appointment.
Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Firm Stance (2022)
Directing Canara Bank to issue an appointment letter to a woman whose offer was cancelled due to a pending FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court criticized the practice of denying employment based on pending FIRs as “a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time.”
The court further noted that “a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizens by using pendency of FIR against them.”
Grounds for Quashing FIRs: The Bhajan Lal Guidelines
Supreme Court’s Established Grounds
The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, established specific principles under which an FIR can be quashed. According to these guidelines, an FIR can be quashed on the following grounds:
- When allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offense
- Where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense
- When there is absence of evidence to support allegations
- When allegations are absurd or inherently improbable
- When there is a legal bar against proceedings
These guidelines are frequently cited in cases involving quashing of FIRs and their subsequent impact on employment opportunities.
Supernumerary Posts as a Remedial Measure
Concept and Judicial Recognition
A supernumerary post is a position created beyond the sanctioned strength to accommodate a person who has been wrongfully denied appointment. The Supreme Court has recognized and applied this concept as an effective remedy in numerous cases.
In Sushma Gosain and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court explicitly stated: “It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.”
Recent Supreme Court Direction (2024)
In a recent 2024 judgment concerning eligibility criteria for Food Safety Officers, the Supreme Court directed that “If no vacancies were available, supernumerary posts were to be created to accommodate the appellants.” The Court further specified that “The appellants, if appointed, would not be entitled to back wages but would receive notional benefits.”
Limitations and Conditions
While courts have often directed the creation of supernumerary posts, they have also established certain limitations. In State of Odisha & Ors. v. Kamalini Khilar, the Supreme Court observed:
“By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the direction of the Tribunal to reinstate the Respondent No. 1 by creating a supernumerary post.”
This indicates that the creation of supernumerary posts is not an automatic remedy but must be justified by the specific circumstances of each case.
Back Wages and Service Benefits: The Extent of Remedy
Position on Back Wages
Courts have taken varying positions on whether candidates wrongfully denied employment are entitled to back wages. In some cases, courts have held that appointment to a supernumerary post does not automatically entitle the candidate to back wages from the date of wrongful denial.
In a Supreme Court case referenced in the search results, the Court held that “The claim of Respondent No. 1 for back wages from the date of termination is at any rate clearly untenable” even while directing appointment to a vacant position.
Supreme Court on Recovery After Quashing Appointments
In an important 2013 judgment, the Supreme Court held that “courts cannot order recovery of the amount of an employee while quashing the appointment as the denial of pay for the service rendered would amount to ‘impermissible’ ‘forced labour’.”
The Court further emphasized that “a judgment can be erroneous but when there is a direction for recovery of the honorarium, it indubitably creates a dent in the honour of a person. Honour once lost may be irredeemable or irresuscitable.”
Seniority and Notional Benefits
When it comes to seniority and other service benefits, courts have often provided specific directions. In one case, the Supreme Court directed: “For the purposes of seniority, the appellant shall be placed below the last candidate appointed in 1976, but she will not be entitled to any back wages.”
This demonstrates that while courts provide remedies for wrongful denial of employment, they balance these remedies with practical considerations regarding seniority, back wages, and administrative efficiency.
Distinction Between Quashed FIR and Tainted Selection Processes
Upholding Merit in Selection Processes
While courts have consistently ruled that quashed FIRs cannot bar public employment, they maintain a clear distinction between this principle and cases involving tainted selection processes. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment (April 3, 2025) upholding the Calcutta High Court’s decision to invalidate nearly 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016 highlights this distinction.
Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar affirmed that “this is the case where the entire selection process is vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. Manipulation and fraud on large scale, coupled with the intention to cover up have tainted the selection process beyond repair. The legitimacy and credibility of the selection process are denuded.”
This judgment reaffirms that in matters involving Quashed FIR and Public Employment, while candidates must not suffer due to quashed or pending criminal cases, the fairness and integrity of the selection process must still be upheld.
Challenging Quashing of FIR and Settlement Agreements
Supreme Court’s Position on Settlement Agreements
The Supreme Court, in Anil Mishra v. State of UP & Ors. (2024), clarified that settlement agreements cannot be the sole basis for quashing criminal proceedings, especially when the original complainant is not a party to such agreements.
The Court emphasized that the High Court “must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings; or continuation of the criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer.”
This judgment is relevant to our discussion as it establishes the parameters within which FIRs can be legitimately quashed, thereby affecting subsequent employment considerations.
Concluding Note on Quashed FIR and Public Employment
The jurisprudence on quashed FIRs and their impact on public employment demonstrates a consistent approach by Indian courts in upholding the constitutional rights of candidates. Once an FIR is quashed, no adverse inference can be drawn to impute negative antecedents that would deprive an individual of public employment opportunities. Similarly, the mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a legitimate ground for denying appointments.
When candidates have been wrongfully denied opportunities based on quashed FIRs or pending criminal cases, courts have frequently directed the creation of supernumerary posts as an appropriate remedial measure. However, the entitlement to back wages and determinations on seniority are decided on a case-by-case basis, balancing individual rights with administrative considerations.
This body of jurisprudence reflects the judiciary’s commitment to preserving the presumption of innocence, protecting constitutional rights to equality in public employment, and ensuring that qualified candidates are not unjustly excluded from government service based on unproven allegations or quashed criminal proceedings.
Public employers and appointment authorities must align their policies with these established legal principles to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure fair consideration of all eligible candidates, regardless of past legal proceedings that have been terminated in their favor.
