{"id":306687,"date":"2023-11-07T09:00:52","date_gmt":"2023-11-07T03:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=306687"},"modified":"2023-11-09T13:11:21","modified_gmt":"2023-11-09T07:41:21","slug":"non-disclosure-of-criminal-antecedent-supreme-court-directs-appointment-of-judiciary-aspirant-to-post-of-civil-judge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/07\/non-disclosure-of-criminal-antecedent-supreme-court-directs-appointment-of-judiciary-aspirant-to-post-of-civil-judge\/","title":{"rendered":"[Non-Disclosure of Criminal Antecedent] Supreme Court directs appointment of judiciary aspirant to post of civil judge with seniority from date of selection"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> 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<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

The Madhya Pradesh High Court gave the following reasons for rejecting petitioner’s selection as civil judge:<\/p>\n