Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Bhardwaj, applied for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) in the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.03.2017. He was declared successful in the main examination and interview, and his name appeared at Serial No.13 in the provisional select list for unreserved category. On 06.04.2018, he was informed of his selection and asked to undergo medical tests. However, during character verification, it was revealed that FIR No.852/2014 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered against him on a complaint by his wife. On 18.07.2018, the Administrative Committee and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee resolved that due to the pendency of the criminal case, the appellant was not considered suitable for appointment. Consequently, on 14.09.2018, the State issued an order deleting his name from the select list, followed by a Gazette notification on 21.09.2018. The appellant challenged these orders by filing a writ petition, which was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition after his acquittal on 18.09.2019. He filed a fresh writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court on 06.01.2020. The Supreme Court considered whether the appellant's subsequent acquittal entitled him to reconsideration and appointment. The Court held that the mere inclusion in the select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, and the employer has the right to refuse appointment on valid grounds. The pendency of a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, involving allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, was a valid ground to assess the appellant's suitability, as judicial officers must possess impeccable character and conduct. The acquittal occurred after the recruitment process was closed, and there was no requirement for the High Court to reconsider the case. The Court distinguished cases where acquittal occurred before the selection process was complete. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Judicial Service Recruitment - Suitability Assessment - Pending Criminal Case - The employer has the right to refuse appointment to a candidate included in the select list on valid grounds, including the pendency of a criminal case involving moral turpitude, as persons in judicial service must have impeccable character and conduct. (Paras 10-12) B) Judicial Service Recruitment - Effect of Acquittal - Reconsideration - Acquittal occurring after the close of the recruitment process does not entitle a candidate to automatic appointment; the employer is not bound to reconsider the case unless the selection process is still ongoing or the rules provide otherwise. (Paras 13-15) C) Judicial Service Recruitment - Character Verification - Standard of Proof - The standard for character verification in judicial service is higher than in other services; even an acquittal must be examined to see if the candidate was completely exonerated, but such examination is not required after the selection process is finalized. (Paras 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate selected for the post of District Judge, whose name was deleted from the select list due to a pending criminal case under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, is entitled to appointment after his subsequent acquittal, and whether the High Court's decision not to reconsider his case was valid.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court held that the deletion of the appellant's name from the select list was valid due to the pending criminal case, and the subsequent acquittal did not entitle him to automatic appointment or reconsideration.
Law Points
- Judicial Service Recruitment
- Character Verification
- Suitability Assessment
- Effect of Acquittal
- Employer's Discretion
