Police Cannot Opine on Job Suitability in Verification Reports, Kerala HC Quashes “Not Suitable” Finding Against HLL Employee
The Kerala High Court quashed a District Police Chief’s finding that a trainee employee was “not suitable for appointment” solely because a motor vehicle accident case was pending against him, holding that suitability for a post is the employer’s prerogative alone.
On 26 May 2026, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, allowed a writ petition filed by Midhun M, a 27-year-old trainee at HLL Life Care Ltd., a Government of India enterprise. The challenge was directed at a police verification report dated 8 May 2026 issued by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram City, which declared the petitioner “not suitable for appointment” on the basis of a pending motor vehicle accident case. The court quashed that finding at the admission stage itself, dispensing with notice to the employer, and held that column No. 6 of the verification form — which invites a police officer to pronounce on suitability — is legally unsustainable.
The Accident, the FIR, and the Verification Process
On 21 August 2025, Midhun M was allegedly riding a motorcycle when it collided with another vehicle. The rider of the other vehicle died in the accident. Peroorkada Police Station registered FIR No. 1069/2025, alleging offences under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The investigation was completed and a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The legal heirs of the deceased also filed a motor accident claim, OP(MV) No. 1100 of 2025, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara.
While these proceedings were ongoing, Midhun M received an appointment order from HLL Life Care Ltd. dated 24 February 2026 and began training. As part of the onboarding process, his employer directed him to submit an attestation form for police verification of his character and antecedents. He disclosed the pending criminal case in the form. The District Police Chief, as the verifying authority, then issued Ext.P7, the verification report dated 8 May 2026.
That report, in column No. 6, recorded that the petitioner was “not suitable for appointment” because of his involvement in Crime No. 1069/2025. The employer, HLL Life Care Ltd., promptly issued Ext.P8, a show cause notice dated 21 May 2026, asking Midhun M to explain why his appointment should not be cancelled on account of the adverse police report. He approached the High Court five days later.
The Statutory Limit of Section 53, Kerala Police Act 2011
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas anchored the analysis in Section 53 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which governs verification of antecedents of service providers and their employees. The provision authorises the Government to direct that service providers obtain a police verification certificate from the District Police Chief regarding themselves and their employees. The subtitle of the section itself — “Verification of antecedents of service providers” — defines the outer boundary of what the police may report on.
The court read the provision carefully and found that the legislature had not contemplated the issuance of a report on the suitability of a person for a particular employment. The police are authorised to report on antecedents, which can include details of pending criminal cases. They are not authorised to convert that factual report into a verdict on whether the person should be employed.
The verification form used by the District Police Chief contained six tabular columns. Column No. 5 asked whether any criminal case was pending and required details. Column No. 6 asked: “Whether suitable for appointment or not.” The court held that column No. 6 is legally unsustainable and went further, observing that the Government would do well to delete it from the format entirely.
Internal Contradiction in the Report Itself
Beyond the structural problem with column No. 6, the court found that Ext.P7 was issued without any application of mind. The tabular portion of the report stated that no crime was registered against the petitioner, while the narrative portion simultaneously referred to Crime No. 1069/2025 and concluded that he was not suitable for the post. The two parts of the same document contradicted each other directly.
The court also questioned the substantive logic of the suitability finding. The offences in the FIR arose from a road accident. The court observed that it “fails all comprehension” how an applicant becomes unsuitable for a post because of a motor vehicle accident, unless the employment in question relates to the driving of vehicles. No such connection was suggested in the record.
Suitability Is the Employer’s Prerogative
The court stated the governing principle plainly: it is not open to a police officer, even of the stature of a District Police Chief, to state whether a person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of criminal antecedents. Whether those antecedents render an applicant unsuitable is a decision that must always remain with the employer.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas drew support from an earlier single-judge decision of the Kerala High Court in Manju B. v. District Police Chief [2022 KER:39103], where the same position was taken. That judgment had held that the verifying authority is not expected to express any opinion about the suitability of the person about whom the report is called for, and that the employer would not be bound by any such opinion even if expressed.
Applying that reasoning to the present facts, the court held that the observation “not suitable” in column No. 6 and in the concluding portion of Ext.P7 was perverse, arbitrary, and without authority.
Outcome
The writ petition was allowed at the admission stage on 26 May 2026. The court quashed the observation “not suitable” appearing in column No. 6 as well as in the concluding portion of Ext.P7, the verification report dated 8 May 2026 issued by the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram City. The court directed that the said observation cannot be used against the petitioner. Notice to the first respondent, HLL Life Care Ltd., was dispensed with since the relief was confined to the challenge against the verification report alone.