Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. S. Jha, Ag. CJ and Vijay Kumar Shukla, JJ.
Apoorva Pathak (Ms.) v. The Hon'ble High Court of M. P. & Another
Writ Petition No. 16900 of 2019 (Jabalpur); Decided on 3.10.2019
Shashank Verma for petitioner; Jagat Singh, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:
(1) Civil Service -- petitioner knowingly suppressed information regarding registration of criminal case and execution of personal bond -- no error in decision to cancel selection of petitioner -- dishonesty should not be permitted to bear fruit and benefit those persons who have defrauded or misrepresented -- Court should not perpetuate fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf -- employer has taken into consideration the conduct of petitioner of non-disclosure and suppression, irrespective of nature of allegations which may be of petty nature -- conduct of candidate of suppression or misrepresentation of information in attestation form, itself amounts to moral turpitude -- petitioner was to be recruited to judicial service -- in such appointment, candidate must be of impeccable character and integrity. (1999) 1 SCC 246 and (2011) 4 SCC 644 distinguished. AIR 2003 SC 1709, AIR 2005 SC 4292, (2008) 1 SCC 660, (2003) 8 SCC 319, (2004) 6 SCC 325, AIR 1996 SC 686, (1990) 3 SCC 655, (2018) 1 SCC 797, AIR 1994 SC 2151, (1994) 2 SCC 481, AIR 1992 SC 1555, (1996) 11 SCC 605, AIR 2000 SC 1165, AIR 1984 SC 1888, (2013) 9 SCC 363 and (2016) 8 SCC 471 followed. 2008(4) MPLJ 379, W. A. No. 3 of 2006 decided on 25.6.2007, W. A. No. 577 of 2006 decided on 23.7.2007, 2015 (4) MPLJ 648, W. P. No. 9284 of 2012 decided on 22.3.2016, 2018 (1) JLJ 169 (FB) and W. P. No. 3828 of 2019 decided on 26.3.2019 relied on. [Paras 8, 12 & 25]
(2) Civil Service -- judicial service -- conduct of candidate of suppression or misrepresentation of information in attestation form, itself amounts to moral turpitude -- petitioner was to be recruited to judicial service -- in such appointment, candidate must be of impeccable character and integrity. [Para 25]
(3) Appointment -- applicant gets office by misrepresenting facts or by playing fraud upon competent authority -- cannot be sustained in the eyes of law -- "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." AIR 1994 SC 853 and 1956 All ER 349 referred to. [Para 13]
(4) Legal Maxim -- "fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant" -- fraud and justice never dwell together. AIR 2000 SC 1165 and AIR 1984 SC 1888 referred to. [Para 17]
¼1½ flfoy lsok & ;kph us nkafMd ekeys ds jftLVªhdj.k rFkk eqpyds ds fu"iknu ds ckjs esa tkurs gq, tkudkjh fNikbZ & ;kph dk p;u jn~n djus ds fofu'p; esa dksbZ =qfV ugha & cbZekuh dks lQy gksus rFkk mu O;fDr;ksa dks Qk;nk igqapkus ugha nsuk pkfg, ftUgksaus diV&opu ;k nqO;Zins'ku fd;k gS & U;k;ky; dks mudh vksj ls ;kfpdk,a xzg.k dj diV dk;e ugha j[kuk pkfg, & fu;kstd us vfHkdFkuksa dh çÑfr ls fujis{k] tks ux.; çÑfr ds gks ldrs gSa] ;kph ds vçdVhdj.k vkSj fNiko ds vkpj.k ij fopkj fd;k gS & lR;kiu ç:i esa tkudkjh ds fNiko vFkok nqO;Zins'ku dk ;kph dk vkpj.k vius vki esa uSfrd vèkerk gS & ;kph dks U;kf;d lsok esa HkrhZ fd;k tkuk Fkk & ,slh fu;qfDr esa vH;FkhZ fu"dyad pfj= rFkk lR;fu"Bk dk gksuk vko';d gSA ¼1999½ 1 ,l lh lh 246 rFkk ¼2011½ 4 ,l lh lh 644 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1709] , vkb vkj 2005 ,l lh 4292] ¼2008½ 1 ,l lh lh 660] ¼2003½ 8 ,l lh lh 319] ¼2004½ 6 ,l lh lh 325] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 686] ¼1990½ 3 ,l lh lh 655] ¼2018½ 1 ,l lh lh 797] , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 2151] ¼1994½ 2 ,l lh lh 481] , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1555] ¼1996½ 11 ,l lh lh 605] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1165] , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1888] ¼2013½ 9 ,l lh lh 363 rFkk ¼2016½ 8 ,l lh lh 471 vuqlfjrA 2008 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 379] fjV vihy Øekad 3 lu~ 2006 fu.khZr fnukad 25-6-2007] fjV vihy Øekad 577 lu~ 2006 fu.khZr fnukad 23-7-2007] 2015 ¼4½ ,e ih ,y ts 648] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 9284 lu~ 2012 fu.khZr fnukad 22-3-2016] 2018 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 169 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 3828 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 26-3-2019 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8] 12 ,oa 25½
¼2½ flfoy lsok & U;kf;d lsok & lR;kiu ç:i esa tkudkjh ds fNiko vFkok nqO;Zins'ku dk ;kph dk vkpj.k vius vki esa uSfrd v/kerk gS & ;kph dks U;kf;d lsok esa HkrhZ fd;k tkuk Fkk & ,slh fu;qfDr esa vH;FkhZ fu"dyad pfj= rFkk lR;fu"Bk dk gksuk vko';d gSA ¼iSjk 25½
¼3½ fu;qfDr & vkosnd us rF;ksa ds nqO;Zins'ku ls vFkok l{ke çkf/kdkjh ls diV dj in çkIr fd;k & fof/k dh n`f"V esa dk;e ugha j[k tk ldrk & ^^diV leLr U;kf;d ÑR;ksa dks 'kwU; dj nsrk gS] og /keZ laca/kh gks ;k ykSfddA** , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 853 rFkk 1956 v‚y bZ vkj 349 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13½
¼4½ fof/kd lw= & ^^ÝkWl ,r ;wl uwuDo‚e dksgkfcrkar** & diV rFkk U;k; dHkh lkFk ugha jgrsA , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1165 rFkk , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1888 fufnZ"VA ¼IkSjk 17½
ORDER
Shukla, J.--1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of the order dated 25.5.2019, Annexure-P-3 whereby her candidature for the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level) 2017 has been rejected and her name has been directed to be deleted from the merit list, as she has been found ineligible for appointment on the ground of concealment of material facts regarding registration of crime, arrest and execution of personal bond.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order and the decision of the respondents cancelling her selection on the ground of suppression of the pendency of criminal case are arbitrary, as there was no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner while submitting her application form after the Main Examination as the petitioner was not aware of registration of any criminal case against her.
3. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that after gathering knowledge of registration of the criminal case, she herself submitted a representation to the respondents, which shows her bonafide conduct and, therefore, her conduct does not fall within the purview of "deliberate suppression". In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments passed by the apex Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another v. Dhaval Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 246; Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644; and Avatar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details : On 2.8.2017 an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.1 inviting applications for Madhya Pradesgh Judicial Examination for the post of Civil Judge Class-II (Entry Level). As per the advertisement the examination was conducted in three stages, namely, Online Preliminary Examination; Main Examination; and Interview.
5. In pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner submitted her application form. She appeared in the Preliminary Examination and was declared qualified for the next examination. The petitioner also appeared in the Main Examination and was declared qualified in the said examination also. Finally she was selected for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry Level). On 18.4.2018 the petitioner submitted her attestation form along with requisite documents and an affidavit. In the attestation form and the affidavit, the petitioner had not disclosed about the pendency of a criminal case or registration of the FIR.
6. At the time of appointment, on verification of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it was noted that the petitioner had suppressed the information regarding registration of criminal case and execution of personal bond in the attestation form which was submitted on 18.4.2018. The condition No.14 of the attestation form, being relevant, is reproduced hereunder:
^^14- ¼d½ D;k vki dHkh fxjrkj fd;s x;s gS\ D;k vki ij dHkh vfHk;kstu pyk;k x;k gS\ D;k vki dHkh fu#) fd, x, gSa ;k vkils eqpydk fy;k x;k gS\ vki ij tqekZuk fd;k x;k gS\ D;k vki fdlh vijk/k ds fy, U;k;ky; }kjk nks"kh Bgjk, x;s gSa ;k vkidks fdlh Hkh yksdlsok vk;ksx vksj mPp U;k;ky; }kjk muds }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kkvksa@fd;s tkus okys p;uksa esa lfEefyr gksus ls oftZr fd;k x;k gS@mlds fy, vugfrZ Bgjk;k x;k gS ;k D;k vki dks fdlh Hkh fo'ofo|ky; ;k fdlh Hkh vU; 'kS{kf.kd Ákfèkdj.k@laLFkk }kjk fdlh Hkh ijh{kk esa cSBus ls oftZr@fu"dkf"kr fd;k x;k gS\ vÁ;ksT;**
English translation of the said clause reads:
"14 (a). Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever been prosecuted? Have you ever been kept under detention or have you ever furnished bond/have you ever been fined? Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any offence? Or have you ever been debarred/disqualified from appearing in any examination/selection conducted by any Public Service Commission or High Court? Or have you ever been debarred/disqualified from appearing
