Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
VIPIN SANGHI, RAKESH THAPLIYAL, JJ.
Rahul Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 199 of 2021
Decided On : 28-08-2023
Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service Recruitment - Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 2001, Rule 24(4) - The court discussed the provisions of Clause 5(viii) of the advertisement, which warned candidates not to furnish false particulars or suppress material information. It also considered the discharge of the petitioner from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service under Rule 24(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 2001.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature for the direct recruitment post of Higher Judicial Service in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner had suppressed information about his discharge from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, and the court found this to be sufficient to reject his candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's suppression of information about his discharge from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service was sufficient to reject his candidature. It also held that the action taken by the Uttarakhand High Court in rejecting the petitioner's candidature was not illegal or unreasonable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's suppression of information about his discharge from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service and the legality of the action taken by the Uttarakhand High Court in rejecting his candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's suppression of material information about his discharge from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service and the provisions of Clause 5(viii) of the advertisement warning candidates not to furnish false particulars or suppress material information.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge and leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to assail the order contained in Letter No. 1045/UHC/XIII-b-1/Admin.A/2019 dated 22.02.2020 (Annexure No. 6) and Letter No. 3014/XIII-b-1/Admin.A/2019 dated 07.07.2020. The writ petitioner is, primarily, aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for the direct recruitment post of Higher Judicial Service in the State of Uttarakhand.
2. The High Court of Uttarakhand, vide notification dated 10.04.2019, invited applications from practicing Advocates to fill up six vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service. One post was open to be filled by General category candidates. The petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement, and offered his candidature as a General category candidate. The petitioner also participated in the selection process, and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the order of merit. However, subsequently, his candidature was cancelled by the impugned communications.
3. The advertisement provided, in Clause 5(viii) that “candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false or suppress any material information while filing up the application form.”
4. The petitioner, in his application form, provided the information, in response to Clause 12 - which reads “Any other relevant information, which is deemed fit to be mentioned” by stating that he “Served in U.P. Judicial Service as Judicial Magistrate - 1st (From 04-06-2013 TO 27-09-2014).”
5. It appears that this Court sent a communication to the Allahabad High Court on 02.12.2019 seeking information regarding the extent of involvement of the petitioner, an ex-Judicial Officer of the U.P. Judicial Service, in the incident, which resulted in termination of his probation, and his discharge simplicter by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In response to the said communication, the Allahabad High Court, acting through Shri Sushil Kumar Rastogi, H.J.S. I/c Registrar General, vide confidential communication dated 10.01.2020, stated as follows:
I/c Registrar General
“CONFIDENTIAL”
D.O. No. C-70/Cf.(A)/2020
Dated: Allahabad, 10 January 2020
Dear Sri Bonal,
I am desired to refer to your letter dated 02.12.2019 seeking information regarding the extent of involvement of Sri Rahul Singh, an ex-Judicial Officer of U.P. Judicial Service in the incident which resulted in the termination of his probation, and to inform you that Sri Rahul Singh was discharged simpliciter from service vide Government Office Memorandum No. 769/Do-4-2014-15(9)/2014 dated 22.9.2014 and a Writ Petition No. 1653/SB/14- Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in the matter. I am further to inform you that Sri Rahul Singh, alongwith other fellow probationers, visited Charan Club & Resort, Faizabad Road, Lucknow in the evening of 7.9.2014 and had liquor and dinner there and afterwards, a fellow probationer was manhandled by him alongwith other probationers at I.J.T.R.
With kind regards,
Yours Sincerely
(Sushil Kumar Rastogi)
6. At this stage, we may also take note of the developments, which took place qua the petitioner, while he was serving as a Judicial Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. It appears that 11 Judicial Officers, in the Judicial Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, were discharged on 22.09.2014 by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The discharge order reads as follows:
^^mRrj Áns'k 'kklu
fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&4
la[;k&769@nks&4&2014&15¼9½@2014
y[kuÅ] fnukad 22 flrEcj] 2014
dk;kZy;&Kki
dk;kZy; Kki la[;k la[;k&768@nks&4&2014&15¼9½@2014] fnukad 19 flrEcj] 2014 ds }kjk 11 Áf'k{kq U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsok;sa rRdky ÁHkko ls lekIr fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr Ánku dh x;h FkhA blds mijkUr egkfuca/kd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds v)Z 'kkŒ i= la[;k 14020@lh,Q¼,½@2004] fnukad 20 flrEcj] 2014 }kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k fd 'kklu dk mDr dk;kZy; Kki fnukad 19-09-2014 ekŒ QqydksVZ ds fjtksyw'ku fnu
Suppression of material information in a job application can be sufficient grounds for rejection of candidature.
The denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name, simultaneously with the withdrawal/rejection of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Rahul Singh, on 19.02.2020, was without any disclosed r....
The deliberate furnishing of false information about the non-pendency of a criminal case can warrant the cancellation of candidature or termination of service, as per the guidelines laid down in rele....
Point of law: it is always permissible for the authority not to perpetuate illegality once having been noticed and here in the instant case, from the initial stage itself, before allowing the petitio....
The selection process under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules was properly executed, and the Governor's decision regarding candidate suitability was upheld, leaving no grounds for inclu....
Maintaining eligibility criteria and cut-off dates is crucial in recruitment to prevent arbitrary selection, and relaxation provisions must be explicitly reserved in rules.
Appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cancellation of candidature of candidates on technical grounds would be improper, unjustified and not warranted.
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
