MP High Court Upholds Rejection of Civil Judge Candidate for Suppressing Criminal Cases

Jabalpur: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level), firmly reiterating that deliberate suppression of criminal antecedents, particularly by applicants for judicial service, warrants cancellation of candidature.

A Division Bench of Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait , Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain , delivered the judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (WP 10408/2025) on May 9, 2025, upholding the State Government's rejection order, which was based on a recommendation from the High Court.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari, applied for the Civil Judge recruitment in 2021 and qualified. However, his candidature was rejected on October 24, 2024, following a recommendation from the High Court's Administrative Committee. The reason cited was the suppression of criminal antecedents in the online application form, main exam application form, attestation form, and personal bio-data form. The petitioner had indicated "Not Applicable" in the column requiring disclosure of criminal history.

Records showed two FIRs registered against a person named Mukesh in March 2008 for motorcycle theft (Section 379/34 IPC and Section 379 IPC), leading to criminal cases in Panna which resulted in acquittal in 2009 and 2010.

Petitioner's Contentions

Appearing in person, the petitioner argued that the ' Mukesh ' accused in the 2008 cases was not him. He claimed differences in village names mentioned in the judgments versus his actual residence (Pipariya vs. Pipariya Don) and geographical distances from the crime scene. He also highlighted that he had disclosed these same criminal cases in previous applications for posts like Law Clerk (2016) and Hardware Technician , where he was selected for Law Clerk and later appointed as Junior Judicial Translator (2023) after disclosure. He mentioned facing issues with his surname, changing from "Verma" to "Chaudhari" to match his caste certificate, which caused confusion. He argued that being acquitted and having no other adverse remarks, along with his selection for other positions, should weigh in his favour, especially as the alleged offences occurred when he was young (around 20). He also sought parity with another candidate, Apurva Pathak , who was appointed despite a past criminal case.

Respondent's Arguments

Counsel for the State and the High Court contended that the petitioner was indeed the person involved in the criminal cases, citing the judgments as proof and asserting that the petitioner could not dispute this at this stage. They emphasized the mandatory requirement for truthful disclosure, regardless of the outcome of the cases. They distinguished the posts of Law Clerk and Translator from that of a Civil Judge, arguing the standards of scrutiny are significantly higher for judicial service. They also pointed out that the petitioner's selection as Law Clerk was based on suppression, leading to subsequent termination in 2018, and his representation to the Full Court seeking appointment was rejected.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the facts and arguments. Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner's own conduct contradicted his claim of not being the accused in the 2008 cases.

> "Once the petitioner had been disclosing the said two criminal cases again and again, as also duly admitted by him in the petition, now it is not open for the petitioner to argue that he was not accused person in the said two criminal cases and some other persons having identical name and father's name was the actual accused person."

The Court also perused the police crime register, which listed the accused's address as "Pipariya Don," matching the petitioner's claimed residence, thereby rejecting his argument based on differing village names in the judgment. The Court acknowledged the destruction of the trial court records of the acquitted cases in the usual course.

The Bench highlighted that the petitioner had previously challenged the rejection of his candidature for Civil Judge Class-II in 2016 (WP No. 18718/2018, dismissed by the Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court), and in that petition, he had pleaded his entitlement based on acquittal, not on the ground that he was not the accused.

The Court placed strong reliance on Supreme Court judgments, including Avtar Singh v. Union of India (2016) , Yogeeta Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) , and R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police (2008) , as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court Full Bench decision in Ashutosh Pawar v. High Court of M.P. (2018) . These precedents underscore the high standards of rectitude, honesty, and integrity required for judicial officers and emphasize that deliberate suppression of material facts, even if acquitted, is a sufficient ground for rejecting candidature.

The Court noted that while trivial offences or unintended non-disclosure might be overlooked in some circumstances, the post of Civil Judge is sensitive, requiring the highest standards of character.

Regarding the claim of parity with Apurva Pathak , the Court distinguished that case, noting that it involved a trivial offence (dog bite) which had been truthfully disclosed, unlike the present case of deliberate suppression.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the petitioner's conduct constituted a deliberate suppression of material facts regarding his criminal antecedents. Given that the petitioner was a legally trained candidate applying for the judicial service, where utmost integrity is paramount, the suppression assumed significant gravity.

> "In view of the aforesaid as it is the case of suppression of criminal antecedents by a candidate who applied for the post of Judicial services, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby upheld."

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the rejection of Mukesh Kumar Chaudhari's candidature for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division. The judgment reinforces the principle that honesty and full disclosure are non-negotiable requirements for entry into the judicial service.