Non-Disclosure of Unknown FIR Not Concealment: Raj HC

Non-Disclosure of FIR He Had No Knowledge Of Is Not Concealment: Rajasthan High Court Orders Constable Driver Appointment

Published: 4 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the rejection of a selected Constable Driver candidate who had answered 'No' to the criminal-case column although his name appeared in a 2020 FIR. The police had not charge-sheeted him, and no material showed that he knew of the FIR (paras 9-10). Non-disclosure of a case of which a candidate had no knowledge is not deliberate concealment, the Court held, and rejecting him on such a 'hyper-technical ground' would offend Articles 14 and 16 (para 10).

Key holdings

The rejection order itself indicated that the allegations were not substantiated and that the charge-sheet left him out (paras 8-9).

Knowledge of an FIR is not presumed where the police did not array the candidate as an accused (para 10).

Not disclosing a case the candidate did not know of is not deliberate concealment of a criminal antecedent (para 10).

Appointment within sixty days if otherwise eligible, with seniority and notional pay fixation but no arrears (para 11).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, from the Tribal Sub-Plan Area, applied to be a Constable Driver under a 9 April 2025 advertisement. He cleared the written and physical tests and was listed at serial number 2 in the final select list of 20 December 2025 (para 2). He answered 'No' to the criminal-case column. On 1 June 2026 the Commandant, Mewar Bhil Corps rejected his candidature because a 2020 FIR had named him and he had not disclosed it (paras 3, 8). His counsel said the FIR arose from a family dispute, that he was never summoned, arrested or questioned, and that the charge-sheet did not array him (para 4). The State defended the rejection (para 6).

Court's Findings

The Court began with the rejection order itself, which indicated that the allegations against the petitioner were not substantiated during investigation and that the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused alone (paras 8-9). His plea that he did not know he had been named therefore 'cannot be brushed aside' (para 10). A candidate can reasonably be expected to disclose facts within his knowledge. Where the investigating agency does not find a named person's involvement and leaves him out of the charge-sheet, it cannot be presumed, without material to the contrary, that he knew of the FIR (para 10). Here no material showed awareness or deliberate suppression; the mere mention of his name did not disentitle him from appointment (para 10). Non-disclosure of a case of which the candidate had no knowledge, and in which he was not even charge-sheeted, cannot be treated at par with deliberate concealment of a criminal antecedent. Denying appointment to an otherwise meritorious candidate on such a 'hyper-technical ground' would be arbitrary and unjust and would offend Articles 14 and 16 (para 10).

Legal Principle

A candidate is expected to disclose facts within his knowledge. Where an FIR names a person but the police do not charge-sheet him, his knowledge of it cannot be presumed; without material showing deliberate suppression, his non-disclosure is not concealment, and denying appointment on that ground is arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16 (para 10).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order turns on knowledge. The rejection rested on his 'No' answer, while the rejection order itself, as the Court read it, showed that the charge-sheet left him out (paras 8-9). A candidate in this position should put the charge-sheet and the absence of any summons or questioning on record; the order suggests the State then needs material showing awareness or intentional suppression (para 10). Relief is conditional: appointment only if otherwise eligible, and no arrears (para 11). Compare J v. State of Rajasthan (non-disclosure of an erased juvenile conviction not concealment) and the Supreme Court's Pinky Meena on minor omissions.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.