S. Ravindra Bhat JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Leave granted. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi ("the Appellant") is in appeal, aggrieved by a common judgment of the Delhi High Court by which the Respondents (hereafter referred to as "candidates/applicants") were directed to be considered for appointment to the post of Constable of Delhi Police.
2. An advertisement was issued in the year 2009, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up vacancies in the cadre of constable in the Delhi Police. It is not in dispute that the Respondent candidates, in their applications, disclosed that criminal cases had been instituted against them-as well as the outcome of those cases. Except in SLP(C) 18396/2014 where the applicant Deepa Tomar was facing trial, the criminal cases had ended in compromise. After due consideration of their candidature, and in terms of S.O. No. 398/2010, the Appellant referred their cases to a Standing Committee, to assess their suitability. In Deepa Tomar's case, the consideration was deferred since she was facing trial in criminal proceedings where she was charged with committing the offence of kidnapping Under Section 364 Indian Penal Code. By various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the Appellant before the High Court. They were dealt with and considered by the common impugned order, which rejected the Appellant's petitions, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. The main argument by the candidates was that having regard to the terms of the applicable Standing Order as well as the decisions of this Court, the rejection of their candidature was unsustainable because of non-application of mind and further the orders were made in a mechanical manner. By the impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions and quashed the rejection of the candidatures of the Respondents.
4. It is urged by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing on behalf of the Appellant that the impugned judgment is erroneous inasmuch as the Division Bench lost sight of the fact that the Standing Orders could not be so read as compelling the authorities to select applicants whose conduct was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Screening Committee. The Appellant relies upon the rulings of this Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. v. Mehar Singh MANU/SC/0620/2013 : (2013) 7 SCC 685 as well as the observations of the three-Judge Bench in the Court's judgment in Avtar Singh v. UOI and Ors. MANU/SC/0803/2016 : (2016) 8 SCC 471.
5. The Appellant urges that in all the four cases, the candidates faced criminal proceedings-in most of them, even charges were framed after which the cases against them ended in a compromise. In the case of Ms. Deepa Tomar........