The Federal Constitutional Court on Tuesday dismissed the Lahore High Court verdict which had denied appointment of the petitioner on account of previous involvement in a criminal case. The decision establishes an important principle for public employment in Pakistan: that a person acquitted of a criminal charge cannot be permanently disqualified from government service merely because a case was once registered against them.
A two-member bench headed by Chief Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court Amin-ud-Din Khan and comprising Justice Ali Baqar Najafi heard the appeal of Abdul Latif against the Lahore High Court. The bench’s decision overturns the High Court’s approach to Latif’s case and restores the principle that acquittal must be given its proper legal effect in recruitment matters.
Latif had secured second position in the merit list for the post of Driver Constable but was denied appointment on account of previous involvement in a criminal case, notwithstanding his acquittal by judgment dated 11 October 2018 and subsequent police character certificates reflecting no criminal record. That history is central to the case. Latif had not merely been accused: he had been acquitted by a court in 2018, and police character certificates issued afterwards reflected no criminal record. Despite that, his appointment was denied because of the earlier involvement in a criminal case.
His representation was rejected by the competent authority on 2 September 2024. A representation is a formal request to an authority to reconsider a decision, and its rejection meant that Latif’s attempt to have the denial of appointment reviewed administratively did not succeed. He then pursued the matter through the courts.
His writ petition and intra-court appeal were dismissed by the High Court by judgments dated 10 April 2025 and 22 May 2025. A writ petition is a challenge brought before a High Court, and an intra-court appeal is an appeal within the same High Court against an earlier decision of a single judge. The dismissal of both meant that, at the High Court level, Latif’s claim to appointment had not succeeded, and the denial based on his previous criminal case involvement had been upheld.
What happens next for Latif will depend on the implementation of the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment by the competent authority. The dismissal of the Lahore High Court verdict removes the judicial basis on which his appointment had been denied. The practical question will be whether and how his appointment to the post of Driver Constable, for which he secured second position on merit, is now processed.
More broadly, the judgment has implications for other candidates in a similar position. Anyone who was involved in a criminal case that ended in acquittal before recruitment, and who was denied public employment solely on that basis, can now point to the Federal Constitutional Court’s reasoning. The distinction between FIR registration and judicially established culpability, and the rejection of perpetual disqualification on the basis of an acquittal, are principles of general application.
For the police department and other recruiting authorities, the judgment provides guidance on how antecedent verification should be conducted under the Police Rules, 1934. Verification remains part of the recruitment process, but it must respect the legal effect of an acquittal. A candidate’s record, including character certificates reflecting no criminal record, must be weighed alongside any earlier involvement in a case that did not result in conviction.
The case of Abdul Latif, from merit list success to denial, representation, High Court dismissal and now Federal Constitutional Court success, illustrates a long legal journey. Its outcome on Tuesday is a clear statement that acquittal matters in law, and that it cannot be treated as if it had never happened when a person seeks public employment.
Source: The Nation, 4 November 2026
