GNCTD9 , though that case dealt with recruitment to a civil post, and arose out of a judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner Manish Saini10 , in that case, was accused of having attempted to rob a pedestrian at knife point, and an FIR was registered against him for having committed offences under Sections 398 and 401 of the IPC read with Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms At, 1959. Consequent on the trial which followed, Manish was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge11 , on the ground that the statements of the PWs were not consistent, no independent witness had been joined and that it was unbelievable that Manish and his fellow accused, who were alleged to have been armed, did not put up resistance when intercepted by the Police officials. The learned ASJ concluded by holding that “the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt” and that, therefore, the accused, including Manish, were entitled to be acquitted. Five years thereafter, Manish applied for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector12 in the Delhi Police, via the Delhi Police Examination 2017. He was provisionally selected. He had disclosed, at the time of applying for the post, the fact that he had been arrayed as an accused in the FIR and that he had been acquitted by the learned ASJ. Solely on the ground of his involvement in the criminal case, his candidature for the post of SI was cancelled. The Screening Committee observed that, as Manish had been involved in a serious offence of attempted robbery and was in possession of spring actuated knives, he was unsuitable for recruitment to a disciplined force such as
