Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur - Appellant
Versus
Akashdeep Morya & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5733 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13017 of 2018)
Decided On : 16-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 148, 149, 504, 324, 420, 406,452, 34, 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Criminal case – Punishment for wrongful restraint – Criminal conspiracy – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for criminal breach of trust – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Appellant issued a notification inviting applications for filling up post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Respondent applied pursuant to same – It would appear that there was no requirement in application for indicating about involvement of candidate in any criminal case – However, when matter was taken for verification, respondent volunteered with information with regard to his being implicated in certain criminal cases – Court may notice details of cases – Held, Court would, therefore, think that bearing in mind age, nature of offences in which first respondent was implicated and the two FIRs, at any rate, in which matter progressed from stage of FIR to stage of charge sheet and the manner in which case ended viz., acquittal based substantially on a compromise and also where witnesses turned hostile and also nature of post for which first respondent was a candidate, matter should have been approached differently by the High Court – Here again, court must notice one aspect – Court in judicial review is not concerned with decision per se – It is more anxious that the decision-making process is not flawed – Circumstances, where Court would interfere with merits of the decision, are far too well settled to require any reiteration – Court cannot possibly hold that decision taken by appellant through its committee after bearing in mind decision in Avatar Singh though it has referred only to paragraph 38.1.4, but in body of which decision, it has borne in mind the principles, which court think would be apposite, should have been interfered with by High Court – In other words, court would think that in facts of this case, interference with decision of appellant was not warranted – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent against the decision of the appellant by which it found that the first respondent did not deserve to be appointed to the Civil Judges’ cadre.
3. The appellant issued a notification dated 25.11.2013 inviting applications for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The respondent applied pursuant to the same. It would appear that there was no requirement in the application for indicating about involvement of the candidate in any criminal case. However, when the matter was taken for verification, the respondent volunteered with the information with regard to his being implicated in certain criminal cases. We may notice the details of the cases which are as follows :
| FIR No./Police Station | Under Sections | Police Investigation | Decision of Court |
| 81/25.06.99 | 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504, 324 IPC | Challan dated 26.07.1999 | Acquitted on 05.02.2011 on the basis of compromise. |
| 75/03.05.11 | 420, 406, 120-B IPC | F.R. No. 78/29.05.11 | F.R. Accepted on 01.10.2011 |
| 106/06.06.11 | 452, 323, 34 IPC | F.R. No. 120/30.06.11 | F.R. Accepted on 18.10.2011 |
| 98/30.05.12 | 341, 323, 324, 34 IPC | Challan dated 27.06.2012 | Acquitted on 16.07.2012 on the basis of compromise. |
4. On 06.07.2015, the Committee of the High court tasked by the Chief Justice to consider the case of 12 candidates including the 1st respondent resolved to not recommend the case of the 1st respondent. The Chief Justice referred the matter back to the Committee regarding the 12 candidates. On 29.07.2015, the Committee again did not recommend the case of the 1st respondent. The Full Court on 08.08.2015 resolved to request the Committee to reexamine the matter. Again on 26.08.2015, the Committee took note of the antecedents of the 1st respondent and resolved not to recommend the case of the 1st respondent. This was accepted by the Full Court.
5. Thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed by the 1st respondent as Writ Petition No. 13192/2015 which resulted in the following order :
After perusing the aforesaid judgment, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation alongwith the copy of the judgment passed in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) before the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within two weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of the order. Upon filing such representation, it is expected that the said representation will be decided in the light of the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and the facts narrated in the representation, on merits within one month from the date of receiving representation.”
6. This resulted in the meeting of the Lower Judiciary Committee of the appellant to consider the matter again and the following is the decision:
In Avtar Singh’s case it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia as under :-
“if acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude of offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available
The concealment of a pending criminal case during the employment application process can justify termination of services, as integrity and character are critical for positions within the judicial sys....
Non-disclosure of minor criminal involvement does not automatically disqualify a candidate; suitability must be assessed holistically by the appointing authority.
(1) Termination – Employer has discretion to terminate or condone an omission in disclosure made by a candidate – Even if a truthful disclosure has been made, employer is well within its right to exa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
