1. Candidate for judicial post denied appointment due to criminal antecedents involving multiple FIRs and acquittals based on compromise — Challenge to denial of appointment. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 1000
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
Important Points
For judicial appointments, employers may deny appointment based on criminal antecedents even if the candidate was acquitted, provided the acquittal was not "honourable." Courts should not interfere with the employer's suitability assessment unless the decision-making process is flawed, illegal, or lacks bona fides.
Subject
Employment - Appointment
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Meenakshi Arora, Mukul Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Dashrath Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Nimesh Suthar, Aditya Chouhan, Gunjan Negi, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Meenakshi Arora, Mukul Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Dashrath Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Nimesh Suthar, Aditya Chouhan, Gunjan Negi, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant asserts employer's discretion to assess suitability for judicial posts based on non-honourable acquittals — Respondent contends youth indiscretions and false implication should be condoned. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Judicial posts demand exacting moral standards to ensure public confidence — Acquittals via compromise or hostile witnesses are not honourable and may render a candidate unsuitable. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 )
4. Employer possesses broad discretion to determine suitability for public service based on antecedents, provided the decision-making process is neither illegal, unfair, nor lacking in bona fides. (Para 25 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside. (Para 31 , 32 )
6. Does the employer have the right to consider criminal antecedents even if the candidate did not suppress the information?
Yes. In cases where the employee has made a truthful declaration of a concluded criminal case, or where information not specifically asked for comes to the employer's knowledge, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. (Para 20 )
7. What is the standard for assessing suitability for judicial appointments regarding criminal antecedents?
Judicial posts require the most exacting standards and the highest moral ground to build public confidence in the justice delivery system. In the absence of an honourable acquittal, involvement in criminal cases may undermine public faith in the system. (Para 22 )
8. How should acquittals based on compromise or hostile witnesses be treated in suitability assessments?
Such acquittals are not considered honourable or based on a complete absence of evidence. The employer may consider the nature of the offence, the background facts, and the grounds of acquittal to determine if the candidate is unfit or of dubious character. (Para 23 , 30 )
9. To what extent can a court interfere with an employer's decision regarding a candidate's suitability?
Judicial review is primarily concerned with whether the decision-making process is flawed, illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides. Courts generally do not interfere with the merits of the decision unless the process itself is found to be deficient. (Para 25 , 30 )
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 :
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Avtar Singh vs Union of India & Ors. reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in this petition.
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 compliance of order dated 08.03.2017 of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court passed in D.B.C.W.P. No. 13192/2015, Akash Deep Morya Vs. Rajasthan High Court, the representation of Shri Akash Deep Morya was considered in the light of the adjudication made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh’s case.
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 as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.”
The committee noted
