Civil Judge Appointment Cancellation| SC Calls For Explanation From Its Registry For Not Placing Order Sheets On Record

The present matter came before the Apex Court in a batch of writ petitions, when a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had upheld the decision of the Court canceling the appointment of the petitioner (in the lead matter) to the post of Civil Judge, Class-II (Entry Level). She was allegedly found ineligible for appointment on the ground of concealment of material facts regarding registration of crime, arrest and execution of personal bond.

While issuing notice to the High Court, a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed, “We note with regret that no order sheet(s) have been placed on record despite number of orders having been passed! Explanation be called and necessary action taken”.

The bench also directed, “In the meantime, looking to the reason for not inducting the petitioners after they were selected, prima facie, the matter needs a re-look by the High Court on the administrative side failing which, we will hear the matter on merits and pass necessary orders”.

Senior Advocate S.K. Gangele and AoR Namit Saxena appeared for the petitioners and AAG Saurabh Mishra appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, the petitioner before the division bench of the High Court had contended the respondents canceling her selection on the ground of suppression of the pendency of criminal is arbitrary, as there was no suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner while submitting her application form after the Main Examination, as the petitioner was not aware of registration of any criminal case against her.

Further that after gathering knowledge of the registered criminal case, she herself had submitted a representation to the respondents, which showed her bonafide conduct and, therefore, her conduct does not fall within the purview of "deliberate suppression".

However, noting the submission made by both the parties, a division bench of the then Acting Chief Justice R.S. Jha and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had observed, “In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law, in the present case the employer has taken into consideration the specific language of clause 14 of the attestation form and the fact that the said attestation form was submitted on 18-4-2018 after execution of personal bond on 17-03-2018, but the said fact was not disclosed in the form. Further, the petitioner submitted an affidavit on 19-4-2018 before the respondents, but in the said affidavit also she did not disclose the aforesaid registration of crime, arrest and execution of personal bond by her. The employer has taken into consideration the conduct of the petitioner of non-disclosure and suppression in the attestation form, irrespective of the nature of allegations against the candidate which may be of petty nature. The conduct of a candidate of suppression or misrepresentation of information in the attestation form itself amounts to moral turpitude. The petitioner was a candidate to be recruited to judicial service and in such appointment, a candidate must be of impeccable character and integrity”.

Accordingly, the bench has listed the matter for further hearing on October 17, 2023.

Cause Title: Apoorva Pathak v The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.