Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Abdul Sahil vs Union Of India And Others on 21 July, 2026
Sr. No. 09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No.593/2025
Abdul Sahil .....Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Nirmal Kotwal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Surabhi Kotwal, Advocate
v/s
Union of India and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC
Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
21.07.2026
01. During the course of hearing, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, invited the attention of this Court to the policy
guidelines governing the consideration of candidature for appointment to
the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), particularly with regard to the
pendency of criminal cases against a candidate and the effect thereof on
his/her eligibility for appointment.
02. A bare perusal of the aforesaid policy guidelines reveals that the
candidature of a candidate for appointment to the CAPFs is liable to be
dealt with in the following manner in cases involving pendency of
criminal proceedings:-
I) The candidate will not be considered for recruitment:-
a) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an offence mentioned
in Annexure-A;
b) Such arrest/detention is made under any of the Acts which are
concerned with security and integrity of the country, terrorist and disruptive
activities, acts against the State, insurgency, etc;
2 WP(C) No.593/2025
c) The candidate has been detained under the National Security
Act/Crime Control Act/any similar legislation, and the same is confirmed by
the Reviewing Authority;
d) Such involvement/case/arrest is concerned with an offence involving
moral turpitude;
e) He/she has been convicted by a Court in any case whether or not an
appeal is pending against such conviction.
Provided that the candidate shall not be barred in the above cases, if only an
FIR has been registered the case is under investigation and no charges have
been framed either on FIR or on the complaint in any Court of Law.
Provided further that the candidate shall not be debarred if he/she has been
finally acquitted/discharged by a Court, whether an appeal is pending or not
against such acquittal.
Provided further that the candidate shall not be debarred if the proceedings
are withdrawn by the Central/State Government.
Provided further that the candidate shall not be debarred if he/she has been
involved/convicted/concerned with minor offences mentioned in Annexure-
B or those mentioned in Chapter VIII & X of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
II) Where a candidate has been convicted and awarded a jail-term of more than
six months, he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment
in the CAPF.
III) Notwithstanding the provisions of 3(iii) above, such candidates against
whom charge-sheet in a criminal case has been filed in the Court and the
charges fall in the category of serious offences or moral turpitude, though
later on acquitted by extending benefit of doubt or acquitted for the reasons
that the witness have turned hostile due to fear of reprisal by the accused
person(s), he/she will generally not be considered suitable for appointment
in the CAFT. The details of crimes which are serious offences or involve
moral turptidue are at Annexure ‘A’. However, cases in which the criminal
court, while acquitting has categorically mentioned that the criminal case
would not be a bar on appointment in Government Services, the candidate
shall be considered for appointment in the concerned CAPF.
IV) Involvement in minor offences, traffic violations, juvenile in conflict with
law (tried in open courts/Juvenile Justice Boards) and accident cases will
not debar an individual for appointment in CAPFs & ARs provided that
appointments for the post of Driver and those related to driving will not be
offered to the individuals, punished for serious traffic offences.
3 WP(C) No.593/2025
V) If a candidate is discharged by extending the benefit under the Probation of
Offender Act, 1958, the suitability of such candidate shall be put up for
consideration of the selection committee as constituted by the DGs of
CAPFs & ARs from time to time for assessing his/her suitability for
appointment in the concerned CAPF.
03. Referring to the aforesaid policy guidelines, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned
DSGI submitted that, in the present case, a charge-sheet has already been
filed against the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the
said policy, particularly with reference to Clause (v) thereof, the
petitioner’s candidature is not eligible for consideration for appointment
to the CAPFs. Upon being confronted with the said policy, Mr. Nirmal
Kotwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sought a
short adjournment to examine the policy guidelines and to assist the Court
on their applicability to the facts of the present case, or if so advised, to
avail of such remedy as may be available in law.
04. Having regard to the request made by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, the matter is adjourned. It is, however, made clear that no
further adjournment on any count whatsoever shall be granted on the next
date of hearing.
05. List this matter on 05.08.2026.
06. Interim direction, if any, to continue, till next date of hearing before the
Bench.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
JAMMU
21.07.2026
Shammi
