2020 Supreme(SC) 588

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
ANIL BHARDWAJ – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No(s). 3419 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10255 of 2020)
Decided on : 13-10-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment – Mere inclusion in select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate. Employer has right to refuse appointment to candidate included in select list on any valid ground.
(2) Appointment – Persons who occupy Judicial Service of State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.
(3) Appointment – At the time of character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on merits by Court, candidate shall be treated to be eligible for Government Service.
(4) Appointment – Any arbitrary decision taken by Selection Committee can very well be interfered by Constitutional Courts in exercise of Judicial Review Jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Appointment – Mere inclusion in select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate – Employer has right to refuse appointment to candidate included in select list on any valid ground – Persons who occupy Judicial Service of State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct – In event it is found that decision by which candidature of a candidate is rejected is arbitrary or actuated by malafide such decision can be interfered by Constitutional Courts – Any arbitrary decision taken by Selection Committee can very well be interfered by Constitutional Courts in exercise of Judicial Review Jurisdiction. (Paras 12, 21 and 22)

(B) Service Law – Appointment – Post of District Judge (Entry Level) in cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst eligible Advocates – FIR against appellant was lodged by his wife under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in year 2014 – Present is not a case where name of appellant was deleted in select list on the ground of any concealment of criminal case against him – Criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was pending at the time when appellant applied for recruitment when he appeared for interview and when result was declared – Character verification report was received from State where pendency of criminal case was mentioned which was reason for Committee to declare appellant unsuitable – At the time of character verification, if a candidate is found to be acquitted on merits by Court, candidate shall be treated to be eligible for Government Service – Appellant who at the time of character verification or at the time of consideration of case of appellant by committee had not been acquitted – Decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding appellant unsuitable was based on relevant consideration – Such decision of Committee was well within jurisdiction and power of Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable – Mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward – Fact that subsequently appellant was acquitted in criminal case did not furnish sufficient ground for reconsidering appellant for appointment on the post – Appellant having already been acquitted, stigma of criminal case has already washed out – High Court did not commit any error in dismissing writ petition – Appeal dismissed. [Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Seva (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994] (Paras 10, 12, 23, 24, 27, 28, )

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal has been filed questioning the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2020 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant in the writ petition has prayed for quashing the orders dated 14.09.2018, 18.07.2018 and 21.09.2019 by which appellant has been held not suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).

Findings of Court:

Appellant having already been acquitted by the judgment dated 18.09.2019 stigma of criminal case has already washed out and the criminal case having resulted in acquittal no stigma is attached to the appellant’s name on the above ground. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the appellant that a stigma shall continue with the name of the appellant is misconceived, stigma, if any, is already over by acquittal.

Result : Appeal dismissed.