Rule of thumb is not even supported by the Standing Order No.6 of 2015 issued by IG Police, Punjab which envisages “candidates having criminal record”–Term “criminal record”, denotes a consistent involvement in criminal activities–Such exercise of discretion is declared against the spirit of the judgment in Faraz Naveed Case and violative of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897—Discretion cannot be exercised in mechanical way, when future of a citizen is at stake—Petitioners, being citizens, have fundamental right under Arts. 18 & 25 of the Constitution against discrimination and for choice of occupation and profession-In particular under Art. 27 of the Constitution, a person qualified for appointment is protected from any discrimination, which includes denial for appointment on conjectures and surmises– -For having an opinion on the criminal record, the Authority must disclose the reasons, as envisaged in Faraz Naveed Case (supra), based on material gathered from Special Branch or concerned Police Station–Rule of thumb followed by the respondents to refuse appointment was declared ultra vires of the Constitution-Admittedly, the petitioners were named in the FIRs arising out of some family dispute–No evidence or information of their other criminal record was available— Acquittal for no evidence meant that the allegation in FIR was false–Any law abiding citizen, by fate, can be entangled in any criminal case, therefore, his future and fundamental rights under the Constitution cannot be compromised by a rule of thumb—Respondent/ CCPO was directed to issue appointment letters to the petitioners—Constitution petition was allowed, in circumstances.