The Supreme Court restored a police selection after finding the rejection arbitrary in a Telangana police recruitment moral turpitude case. It set aside the Telangana High Court Division Bench order and reinstated the Single Judge’s direction for reconsideration of the candidature. The Court held that the screening committee misapplied the law while cancelling the appointment.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan delivered the judgment on May 21, 2026, in Gajula Thirupathi v. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board.
Background of Recruitment Dispute
The recruitment board provisionally selected the appellant as a constable trainee, subject to verification of antecedents. During verification, he disclosed his involvement in a 2014 criminal case under Sections 417, 420, and 506 IPC.
The case arose from a relationship dispute that later reached compromise before a Lok Adalat. Following the compromise, authorities still cancelled his selection, citing moral turpitude concerns.
The appellant challenged the cancellation. A Single Judge of the Telangana High Court first ordered reconsideration of his case in 2020.
Reconsideration and Cancellation
After reconsideration, the recruitment board again rejected his candidature in 2021. It relied on service rules disqualifying candidates involved in offences involving moral turpitude.
The board also cited Supreme Court rulings that stress integrity for police service. Despite this, the candidate argued that he had fully disclosed the case and never suppressed facts.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant argued that the case arose from a consensual relationship. He also pointed out that the matter ended in compromise before a Lok Adalat.
He further argued that no trial occurred and no finding of guilt existed. Therefore, he claimed the rejection lacked legal basis.
The respondents defended the cancellation. They argued that involvement in moral turpitude offences justified disqualification, even after compromise.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Court examined the record carefully. It noted that the appellant disclosed the case at every stage. It also observed that no charge of rape was made.
Importantly, the Court found no evidence that the compromise was forced. It also rejected the assumption that compromise equals guilt.
The Bench held that authorities must act on material evidence, not assumptions. It found the screening committee’s reasoning arbitrary.
The Court also distinguished earlier precedents involving violent conduct. It said those cases did not apply to consensual relationship disputes.
In this Telangana police recruitment moral turpitude case, the Court stressed that authorities must evaluate character based on objective material, not suspicion.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court dated November 22, 2024.
It restored the Single Judge’s order dated June 3, 2024. It directed reconsideration of the candidate’s appointment.
The Court held that the rejection was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It also directed expeditious compliance without costs.
The appeal succeeded and all pending applications stood disposed of.
