Candidate With Criminal Antecedents Cannot Claim Appointment In District Judgeship: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court observed that a candidate with criminal antecedents cannot claim an appointment in the District Judgeship as the character and integrity of such a candidate must be impeccable.
The Court upheld the termination of the candidate (petitioner) appointed to the Class-IV post in the District Judgeship. The Bench stated that the petitioner had made categorical averment that there was no criminal case registered or pending against him. However, during the police verification, it was found that a criminal case was pending against him and the same had been concealed.
A Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, “The verification of character and antecedents of an employee are to be ensured by the employer. The character and integrity of a candidate, who is seeking appointment in the District Judgeship must be impeccable and his/ her antecedents should be clean. If a person, whose integrity is doubtful, and his/ her antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim appointment as the same may adversely affect the institution.”
Advocate Puneet Bhadauria appeared for the appellant, while CSC Ashish Mishra represented the respondents.
The services of the petitioner were dispensed by the impugned judgment and order of the District Judge, which was challenged before the High Court.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had concealed the material fact of a criminal case pending against him while swearing the affidavit at the time of getting employment.
“In the present matter, the dispute relates to furnishing false information at the time of appointment. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to pending criminal case, such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling the candidature,” the Court remarked.
The Court referred to Rule 15 of the U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013 (Rules) which dealt with the conditions relating to suitability and certificates of characters. Rule 15 stipulated that “no person shall be appointed unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respect suitable for appointment to the service.”
The Court explained that if a person whose integrity was doubtful or whose antecedents were not clean was appointed, it would damage the institution inasmuch as “if the Court records are misplaced or tampered which would cause immense prejudice to the litigants and also shake the confidence of the public in the judicial system which would eventually result in serious damage to the prestige of the institution.”
Consequently, the Court held, “ We find that learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement has also elaborately dealt with each and every aspect of the issues involved, while affirming the order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the respondent no.3 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The impugned order being just and proper, we are not inclined to interfere with impugned order.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ram Sewak v. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:7706-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Puneet Bhadauria
Respondents: CSC Ashish Mishra and Fuzail Ahmad Ansari