Supreme Court: In a writ petition against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court decided to not appoint the petitioner for the post of Judicial officer (Civil Judge, Junior Division) for Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services, as she has not disclosed that she had a criminal case under Section 289 of the Penal Code, 1860, against her, the division bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. while quashing the impugned order, has said that the impugned order, though well intentioned, is causing grave injustice to the petitioner. Further, it directed that the petitioner should be appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and that her seniority will be from the date of her selection, in order of her merit. However, she will be entitled to her salary only from the date of her joining the post.
The petitioner was selected as Judicial officer (Civil Judge, Junior Division) for Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services for the selection process initiated in the year 2019. The name of petitioner was, however, not recommended for appointment for the reasons that she had a criminal case under Section 289 of the Penal Code, 1860, against her, which she had not disclosed. In the said criminal case, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and her father, as their pet dog had attacked their neighbour. Although, she had been acquitted in the said case long back, since she had not disclosed about this case in the selection process, her name was deleted from the list of selected candidates.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court gave the following reasons for rejecting petitioner’s selection as civil judge:
-
Non-disclosure of the criminal case in the earlier selection process (year 2017) and the fact that she had lost her case from all the Courts including the Supreme Court. The fact that in the present selection process the petitioner had disclosed her “criminal case” and acquittal has been admitted by the High Court.
-
The aforesaid fact has not been stated by her in the present writ petition before the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that the petitioner was even selected earlier in 2017 for the same post, but her candidature was rejected for the same reason, and it was alleged that this fact has not been disclosed by her in the present petition. After perusing the petition, the Court found that this fact has been stated by the petitioner in the List of Dates.
The Court noted that in the present selection process, initiated for the year 2019, for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the petitioner at the time of her interview had filled a form where she had clearly stated that there was a case against her in the year 2018 under Section 289 of IPC , in which she was acquitted. She was also asked this question in the interview where she stated the facts. Therefore, the Court said that it is not correct to say that she had concealed this fact of her so-called “criminal antecedent” in the selection process.
The Court opined that the grounds which have been made by the High Court for not giving appointment to the petitioner were not tenable. The nature of the offence against the petitioner is itself an extremely minor offence under IPC. For the non-disclosure of this offence, she has already suffered, since in the first round of selection for the year 2017 although she was selected but was not given appointment, and she lost her case right up to the Supreme Court. To punish her again for the same reason in the next selection process is not justified.
[Apoorva Pathak v Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1445, Order dated 17-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Advocate-On-Record Niraj Sharma, Advocate Mahima Sharma, Advocate Tanya Raizada, Advocate G.A.V. Ravi Kumar, Advocate Sumit Kumar Sharma, Advocate Ragav Gupta, Senior Advocate S.K Gangele, Advocate Priya Sharma, Advocate Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Advocate Arjun Sain, Advocate-On-Record Shashi Kiran, Advocate-On-Record Namit Saxena, Advocate Awnish Maithani, Advocate Shivam Raghuwanshi, Advocate Swapnil Jain, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Advocate-On-Record Nikhil Jain, Advocate Divya Jain, Advocate Monica Dhingra
For Respondent(s): Advocate-On-Record Arjun Garg, Advocate Sagun Srivastava, Advocate Shreya Bansal, Advocate Aniket Singh, Advocate-On-Record Sunny Choudhary, Advocate Sandeep Pathak, Advocate Sandeep Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
