Hemant Gupta, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the present writ petition on 23.10.2017 found conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court in W.P. No. 5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P. and another) decided on 27.10.2016 and W.A. No. 163/2009 (Roop Narayan Sahu vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 11.08.2017. Therefore, the following questions were framed for the decision of the larger Bench:-

1. Whether in all cases, where an FIR lodged against a person for minor offences has been quashed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties or a person has been acquitted on account of a compromise between the parties, the character of the person applying for appointment thereafter, has to be treated as Good and such a person cannot be held ineligible for appointment under the Rules of 1994?

2. Whether the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can step into the shoes of the Appointing Authority and determine as to whether the person concerned is fit for appointment or whether the High Court on finding that the Authority concerned has wrongly exercised its discretion in holding the candidate to be ineligible should, after quashing the order, remit the matter back to the authority concerned for reconsideration or for fresh consideration as to the eligibility of the person?

3. Whether the High Court while allowing such a petition in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue a further direction to the authority to appoint the person concerned on the post from the date his batchmates were appointed and to grant him back dated seniority and all other benefits or whether the High Court should simply remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision in this regard?

4. Whether the high standards of adjudging the good character of a candidate for appointment as a Judicial Officer, which has been adopted and followed by the State under the Rules of 1994 till the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) were and are right and proper or whether in view of the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra), the same should be considered to be relaxed to the extent that in all cases the character of a person should be treated to be good where he has been acquitted for minor offences on the basis of a compromise?

5. Whether the decision in the case of Arvind Gurjar (supra) lays down the correct law?

6. Any other question that may arise for adjudication or decision in the dispute involved in the present petition and which the Larger Bench thinks appropriate to decide?

2. The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioner applied for appointment as Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry Level). The selection process of the said recruitment commenced vide advertisement dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner successfully completed all the three stages of the examination i.e. preliminary examination, main examination and interview and his name was recommended for appointment as Civil Judge, Class-II. However, while recommending the name of the petitioner on 3rd September 2015, the following was communicated to the State Government by this Court:-

"(2) Shri Ashutosh Pawar (Roll No. 1621), s/o. Shri Gaurav Pawar, R/o. 9, Adarsh Indira Nagar, Main Road, Indore (MP) - 452002, Selected at Sr. No. 1 in ST category, has informed that on the basis of crimes registered against him at Police Station Malhargunj, Indore-(i) Cr. Case 1742/08 under S. 452, 294, 324/34, 323/34, 506-B IPC was commenced, which was disposed on the basis of compromise and he was acquitted vide order dt. 13/04/2012 (copy of Order enclosed with Attestation Form), Passed by Shri Ashutosh Shukla, JMFC, Indore; (ii) Cr. Case 135/05 under S. 294, 323/34, 506-B IPC was commenced before juvenile justice Board and on admission on 12.01.07, order of admonition was passed.

Before issuing the appointment order, in respec