Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suhas Arun Malve, an advocate since 2004, applied for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Maharashtra. He was selected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (Respondent No.3) and placed at Sr. No.121 in the merit list. The High Court recommended his appointment. However, the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1), based on an adverse police report and the opinion of the Chief Minister (Respondent No.2), decided not to appoint him. The petitioner challenged the communications dated 14th December 2015 and 26th July 2016 refusing his appointment. The Court found that the adverse material was not disclosed to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given. The Court held that the Government's action violated principles of natural justice and was arbitrary. The impugned communications were quashed, and the Government was directed to reconsider the petitioner's appointment after affording him a fair hearing.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Appointments - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner, an advocate recommended by the High Court for appointment as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, was denied appointment by the State Government based on an adverse police report and opinion of the Chief Minister without being informed of the adverse material or given a hearing. The Court held that the Government's action violated principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned communications, directing reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the High Court for judicial service based on an adverse police report without disclosing the same to the candidate and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Final Decision
The impugned communications/orders dated 14th December 2015 and 26th July 2016 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and after disclosing the adverse material to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Judicial appointments
- Adverse material
- Police verification
- Selection process
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 73
WRIT PETITION NO.11266 OF 2016
S.C. Dharmadhikari, B.P. Colabawalla
Uday Warunjikar, Sachinkumar P. Rajepandhare, Sushma Bhende, Amit Borkar
State of Maharashtra and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of appointment to judicial service.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of communications/orders dated 14th December 2015 and 26th July 2016 and direction to appoint the petitioner as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was recommended by the High Court for appointment but the State Government refused based on an adverse police report and opinion of the Chief Minister without disclosing the same to the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the State Government can refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the High Court for judicial service based on an adverse police report without disclosing the same to the candidate and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the impugned communications were arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice as the adverse material was not disclosed to him.
The respondents argued that the government has the power to refuse appointment based on police verification and the opinion of the Chief Minister.
Ratio Decidendi
The State Government cannot refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the High Court for judicial service based on an adverse police report without disclosing the same to the candidate and without affording an opportunity of hearing, as it violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner's case is that despite being recommended by Respondent No.3 to the said post and being included at Sr. No.121 in the merit list, Respondent No.1, on the basis of the opinion/recommendation of Respondent No.2, decided not to recommend the name of the Petitioner for judicial service.
The Court held that the Government's action violated principles of natural justice and quashed the impugned communications, directing reconsideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the communications/orders dated 14th December 2015 and 26th July 2016 passed by the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra refusing his appointment as Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
