Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Hemant Gupta, C.J. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Mukesh Kumar Verma v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No. 18718 of 2018 (J); Decided on 3.10.2018*
Manoj Kumar Sharma for petitioner; Smt. Namrata Agrawal , Government Advocate for respondent/State; Anshuman Singh for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Headnote:Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule, 1994 (M.P.) -- Rr. 7, 9 and 10 -- petitioner appointed in High Court as Law Clerk -- while working on said post, he applied for appointment to post of Civil Judge Class II. -- acquitted in criminal case -- name struck off from merit list of selected candidates -- challenged on ground that earlier candidates against whom criminal Case registered were appointed -- petitioner cannot claim parity in illegality -- no interference. 2018 (I) JLJ 169 (FB) relied on. (2013) 16 SCC 622, (2003) 3 SCC 437, (1997) 1 SCC 256 and (2018) 1 SCC 797 followed. [Paras 5 to 8
voj U;kf;d lsok ¼HkrhZ ,oa lsok 'krsZ½ fu;e] 1994 ¼eŒçŒ½ & fuŒ 7] 9 rFkk 10 & ;kph mPp U;k;ky; esa fof/kfyfid fu;qä & mä in ij dk;Z djrs gq, mlus flfoy U;k;k/kh'k oxZ 2 ds in ij fu;qfä ds fy, vkosnu fd;k & vkijkf/kd ekeys es og nks"keqDr & p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls uke dkV fn;k x;k & bl vk/kkj ij vk{ksi fd;k fd iwoZ esa ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fo#) vkijkf/kd ekeys jftLVªh—r Fks] og fu;qä fd, x, & ;kph voS/krk esa lekurk dk nkok ugha dj ldrk & gLr{ksi ughaA 2018 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 169 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼2013½ 16 ,l lh lh 622] ¼2003½ 3 ,l lh lh 437] ¼1997½ 1 ,l lh lh 256 rFkk ¼2018½ 1 ,l lh lh 797 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 5 ls 8½
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 15.6.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby name of the petitioner was struck off from the merit list of the selected candidates for the post of Civil Judge, Class-II, for the reason that he was not found suitable for appointment.
2. The petitioner was appointed in this High Court as a Law Clerk on 17.8.2016 (Annexure P-2) on contract basis. While working as a Law Clerk, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Class-II in response to an advertisement published on 6.10.2016 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner in the application form disclosed two criminal cases registered against him such as Criminal Case Nos. 423/2008 and 422/2008 but he stands acquitted. In Criminal Case No. 423/2008 he was acquitted on 25.9.2009 for an offence under section 379 of IPC whereas, in Criminal Case No. 422/2008 he was exonerated on 5.4.2010.
3. The question: as to whether acquittal in a criminal case is proof of good conduct has been examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Ashutosh Pawar v. High Court of M.P. and Another [2018(1) JLJ 169 (FB)=2018 (2) M PLJ 417] wherein after review of the cases including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others v. Pradeep Kumar and another [(2018) 1 SCC 797], it has been held as under :
“25. The present is not a case of concealment of facts but in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591 wherein appointment to the post of Constable has been held to be a post requiring utmost rectitude and only a person of impeccable character and integrity is required to be appointed, such test will increase manifold in respect of a Judicial Officer, who is called upon to discharge the sovereign functions in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported as (1993) 4 SCC 288, All India Judges' Association and others v. Union of India and others observed as under :
“7. It is not necessary to repeat here what has been stated in the judgment under review while dealing with the same contentions raised there. We cannot however, help observing that the failure to realÁe the distinction between the judicial service and the other services is at the bottom of the hostility displayed by the review petitioners to the directions given in the judgment. The judicial service is not service in the sense of 'employment'. The Judges are not: employees. As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the State…............. The Judges, at whatever level they may be, represent the State and its authority unlike the administrative executive or the members of the other services. The members of the other services, therefore, cannot be placed on par with the members of the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally.
8. This distinction between the Judges and the members of the other services has to be constantly kept in mind for yet another important reason. Judicial independence cannot be secured by making mere solemn proclamations about it. It has to be secured both in substance and in practice. It is trite to say that those who are in want cannot be free. Self-reliance is the foundation of independence. The society has a stake in ensuring the independence of the judiciary, and no price is too heavy to secure it. To keep the judges in want of the essential accoutrements and thus to impede them in the proper discharge of their duties, is to impair and whittle away justice itself.”
26. In a judgment reported as (1987) 3 SCC 1, Daya Shankar v. High Court of Allahabad and others while examining the conduct of use of unfair means by a Judicial Officer in the LL.M. examination, it was held that Judicial Officers have only one standard of rectitude, honesty and integrity. They cannot act even remotely u
