Service Law – Judicial Service – The appellant was selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) – In his online application, the appellant had mentioned that one FIR u/ss. 498/406/34 was pending against him – On 14.09.2018, an order was issued which declared the appellant ineligible and his name was deleted from the select list for the said post – A writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 14.09.2018 – It was disclosed under the Right to Information Act that the joint meeting of Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee dated 18.07.2018 had considered appellant not suitable for being appointed – Meanwhile, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him vide judgment dated 18.09.2019 – The appellant withdrew his earlier writ petition and filed a fresh writ petition incorporating subsequent events, facts and acquittal order – The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his subsequent acquittal should have been reconsidered by the High Court and the High Court committed an error in not considering the appellant for appointment – It was further contended that as per paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines issued by the State on the subject ‘regarding issuing of new guidelines for character verification’, the candidate will be eligible for Government Service as appellant has been acquitted – Held: There is no dispute that on the date when the Committee declared the appellant unsuitable, criminal case against him u/s. 498A and 406 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the appellant’s wife – The mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate – The employer has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list or any valid ground – The persons who occupy judicial service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct – The decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable – There was no infirmity in the decision taken by the Committee – The High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition – The fact that subsequently the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case did not furnish sufficient ground for reconsidering the appellant for appointment on the post – As far as the paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines is concerned, the same cannot came to the rescue of the appellant since at the time of character verification the appellant had not been acquitted and he was acquitted after more than a year from rejection of his candidature – Thus, the appellant was not entitled for any relief in the writ petition.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the decision of Examinationcum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was based on the relevant consideration, i.e., a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending consideration which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant. Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward. [Para 23][452-G-H; 453A]
2. There being no infirmity in the decision dated 18.07.2018 of the Committee declaring the appellant unsuitable for the post and consequential decision taken by the State to delete the name of the appellant, the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition. The fact that subsequently the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case did not furnish sufficient ground for reconsidering the appellant for appointment on the post. [Para 24][453-B-C]
3. The guidelines dated 05.06.2003 has been issued by Government of Madhya Pradesh on the subject “regarding issuing of new guidelines for character verification.” Clause (viii) of paragraph 6 on which the reliance is placed contemplates that the candidate who has been acquitted on merit by the Court will be eligible for the Government service. The aforesaid contemplation relates to at the time of character verification. Thus, at the time of character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on merits by the Court, the candidate shall be treated to be eligible for Government Service. The Clause (viii) cannot come to the rescue of the appellant who at the time of character verification or at the time of consideration of the case of the appellant by the committee on 18.07.2018 had not been acquitted. Had the appellant in column 12 had mentioned about the acquittal or at the time of character verification it was found that the candidate has been acquitted on merit by the Court, Clause 6(viii) would have been attracted but in the present case the said clause is not attracted since at the time of character verification the appellant had not been acquitted and he was acquitted after more than a year from rejection of his candidature. [Paras 26 and 27][453-E-F; 454-B-D]
Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 : [2013] 13 SCR 432; Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others (2016) 8 SCC
471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445; Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Pradeep Kumar and
Another (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112 – relied on.
Joginder Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others (2015) 2 SCC 377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155 –
distinguished.
Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra and Others AIR 2018 SC 4895; Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and
Another v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others (2008) 17 SCC 703 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.