SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(MP) 167

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Gajendra Singh, JJ.
Poonam Nanwani (Dr. Ms.) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Others
Writ Appeal No. 857 of 2024 (Indore): against the order dated 18.3.2024 passed in W. P. No. 18212/2023; Decided on 15.4.2024

Advocates:
Manoj Manav for appellant; L. C. Patne for respondents.

Headnote:

(1) Appointment -- disclosure/suppression of criminal proceeding -- Court has to consider nature of offence, and timing and nature of criminal case -- nature of query in application/verification form, contents of character verification reports, socio-economic stratum of individual applying, other antecedents of candidate, nature of consideration and contents of cancellation/termination order are some crucial aspects in adjudging suitability and determining nature of relief to be ordered. (2016) 8 SCC 471, (2011) 4 SCC 644, (2011) 14 SCC 709, (2022) SCC Online SC 532, (2019) 17 SCC 696, (2023) 7 SCC 530 and 2003(1) JLJ 403 followed. (1970) 2 QB 114 referred to. (2023) SCC Online SC 1379 distinguished. [Para 20]

(2) Appointment -- suppression of criminal proceeding -- while filling up application form, appellant gave undertaking that neither any FIR has been registered against her, nor any police enquiry is pending -- it was also declared that she was not involved in any offence of moral turpitude nor was convicted, and no criminal case is pending against her in any Court of law -- police enquiry and investigation was suppressed appellant -- purpose of requiring employee to furnish information regarding prosecution/conviction etc. in verification form was to assess his/her character and criminal antecedents for purpose of service --suppression of material information and making false statement had clear bearing on character, conduct and antecedents of employee -- no apparent error in order setting aside selection order of appellant. 2003(1) JLJ 403 followed. [Paras 22 to 24]

¼1½ fu;qfä & nkafMd dk;Zokgh dk çdVhdj.k@fNiko & U;k;ky; dks vijk/k dh ç—fr ij rFkk nkafMd çdj.k ds le; vkSj ç—fr ij fopkj djuk gksrk gS & mi;qärk U;k;fu.khZr djus rFkk vknsf'kr fd, tkus okys vuqrks"k dh ç—fr vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, dqN fu.kkZ;d igyw vkosnu@lR;kiu ç:i esa ç'u dh ç—fr] pfj= lR;kiu çfrosnuksa dh varoZLrq vkosnu djus okys O;fä dk lkekftd&vkfFkZd Lrj] vH;FkhZ ds vU; iwoZo`Ùk] jídj.k@lsoklekfIr vkns'k esa fopkj-foe'kZ dh ç—fr vkSj mldh varoZLrq gSaA ¼2016½ 8 ,llhlh 471] ¼2011½ 4 ,llhlh 644] ¼2011½ 14 ,llhlh 709] ¼2022½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 532] ¼2019½ 17 ,llhlh 696] ¼2023½ 7 ,llhlh 530 rFkk 2003¼1½ ts,yts 403 vuqlfjrA ¼1970½ 2 D;wch 114 fufnZ"VA ¼2023½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1379 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 20½

¼2½ fu;qfä & nkafMd dk;Zokgh dk fNiko & vkosnu ç:i Hkjrs le; vihykfFkZuh us opui= fn;k fd u rks mlds fo:) dksbZ çFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ iath—r dh xbZ gS] u dksbZ iqfyl tk¡p gh yafcr gS & ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k fd og uSfrd v/kerk ds fdlh vijk/k esa varoZfyr ugha Fkh vkSj u fl)nks"k gh BgjkbZ xbZ Fkh] rFkk fof/k ds fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa mlds fo:) dksbZ nkafMd çdj.k yafcr ugha gS & vihykfFkZuh }kjk iqfyl tk¡p vkSj vUos"k.k fNik;k x;k & deZpkjh ls lR;kiu ç:i esa vfHk;kstu@nks"kflf) vkfn ds ckjs esa tkudkjh nsus dh vis{kk dk ç;kstu lsok ds ç;kstukFkZ mlds pfj= vkSj nkafMd iwoZ o`Ùkksa dk fuèkkZj.k djus dk Fkk & rkfRod tkudkjh fNikus vkSj feF;k dFku djus dk deZpkjh ds pfj=] vkpj.k vkSj iwoZ o`Ùkksa ls Li"V laca/k Fkk & vihykfFkZuh dk p;u vkns'k vikLr djus ds vkns'k esa dksbZ çR;{k xyrh ughaA 2003 ¼1½ ts,yts 403 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22 ls 24½

ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. In this writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 appellant assails the order dated 18.3.2024 passed in W.P. No. 18212/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 5 setting aside the selection order of the present appellant and also directed the authorities to appoint the Respondent No. 5 as Associate Professor.

3. A writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :--

(a) to call for the relevant records of the case;

(b) to command the Respondents to reject the candidature of respondent No. 5 for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Pathology in MGM Medical College, Indore by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(c) to command the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Pathology Subject in Government Autonomous MGM Medical College, Indore by giving due credence to the experience earned by her in SAIIMS, Indore and also the 6 months’ training undertaken by her with Unipath Specialty Laboratory, Indore and by declaring the result of selection process for appointment on the post of Associate Professor in Pathology and by granting him all consequential and monetary benefits including arrears of salary and allowances together with interest @ 12% p.a., by a Writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(d) to allow this petition with costs;

(e) to pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in fact and circumstance of the case to grant relief to petitioner.

(f) to quash the impugned select list dated 21.9.2023 (Annexure P/20) issued by Respondent No.4 by a writ of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.”

4. The grievance of the Respondent No.5 was that she had participated in the recruitment drive for the post of Associate Professor in Pathology. The present appellant was declared successful, whereas the Respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No.1 in the waiting list.

5. The writ petition was filed on the ground that the present appellant had suppressed the material information regarding a criminal case pending against her in the trial Court under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also that she was not even eligible to participate in the aforesaid selection process again on the basis of pendency of a criminal case.

6. The learned Single Judge considering the terms and conditions of the advertisement, especially the Mahatvapurna Teep (Important Point) which clearly reveals that any person submitting his application in the requisite form is also required to submit the undertaking in the given format only because any police case registered against the applicant or any enquiry pending against him or her, affects his or her appointment. The learned Single Judge while considering the submissions of both the sides allowed the writ petition by passing following order :--

Resultantly, the petition stands allowed for the reason that the petitioner has not submitted her application in the requisite Format, leading to its alteration, which cannot be allowed. Thus, the selection order dated 21.9.2023 depicting the respondent No.5 as the select candidate is hereby quashed, and in its place the petitioner is declared to be the successful candidate being the only person in the waiting list, w.e.f. the date on which the respondent No.5 was appointed.

The respondents are also directed to accord to the petitioner all the consequential benefits, except the monetary benefits as the petitioner is already in employment and has earned continuously since 21.9.2023.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no sup

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top