ANIL BHARDWAJ versus THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 13-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
ANIL BHARDWAJ
v.
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3419 of 2020)
OCTOBER 13, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Judicial Service – The appellant was selected
for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) – In his online
application, the appellant had mentioned that one FIR u/ss. 498/
406/34 was pending against him – On 14.09.2018, an order was
issued which declared the appellant ineligible and his name was
deleted from the select list for the said post – A writ petition was
filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 14.09.2018 –  It
was disclosed under the Right to Information Act that the joint meeting
of Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and
Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee dated
18.07.2018 had considered appellant not suitable for being
appointed – Meanwhile, the appellant was acquitted of the charge
framed against him vide judgment dated 18.09.2019 – The appellant
withdrew his earlier writ petition and filed a fresh writ petition
incorporating subsequent events, facts and acquittal order – The
said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court – Before the
Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his subsequent acquittal
should have been reconsidered by the High Court and the High
Court committed an error in not considering the appellant for
appointment – It was further contended that as per paragraph 6(viii)
of the guidelines issued by the State on the subject ‘regarding issuing
of new guidelines for character verification’, the candidate will be
eligible for Government Service as appellant has been acquitted –
Held: There is no dispute that on the date when the Committee
declared the appellant unsuitable, criminal case against him u/s.
498A and 406 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint
filed by the appellant’s wife – The mere inclusion in the select list
does not give an  indefeasible right to a candidate – The employer
has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the
442
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 442
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
select list or any valid ground – The persons who occupy judicial
service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable
character and conduct – The decision of the Committee was well
within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be
said to be unsustainable – There was no infirmity in the decision
taken by the Committee – The High Court did not commit any error
in dismissing the writ petition – The fact that subsequently the
appellant was acquitted in the criminal case did not furnish sufficient
ground for reconsidering the appellant for appointment on the post
– As far as the paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines is concerned, the
same cannot came to the rescue of the appellant since at the time of
character verification the appellant had not been acquitted and he
was acquitted after more than a year from rejection of his candidature
– Thus, the appellant was not entitled for any relief in the writ
petition.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case, the decision of Examination-
cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the
appellant unsuitable was based on the relevant consideration,
i.e., a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/
406/34 IPC was pending consideration which was registered on
a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant. Such decision of the
Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the
Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere
fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person
whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot
be a ground to turn the clock backward. [Para 23][452-G-H; 453-
A]
2. There being no infirmity in the decision dated 18.07.2018
of the Committee declaring the appellant unsuitable for the post
and consequential decision taken by the State to delete the name
of the appellant, the High Court did not commit any error in
dismissing the writ petition. The fact that subsequently the
appellant was acquitted in the criminal case did not furnish
sufficient ground for reconsidering the appellant for appointment
on the post. [Para 24][453-B-C]
3. The guidelines dated 05.06.2003 has been issued by
Government of Madhya Pradesh on the subject “regarding issuing
ANIL BHARDWAJ v. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.