Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Apoorva Pathak vs The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2023
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.379 OF 2023
APOORVA PATHAK …PETITIONER
Versus
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH & ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner was selected as
Judicial officer (Civil Judge, Junior Division) for Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Services for the selection process initiated
in the year 2019. The name of petitioner was, however, not
recommended for appointment for the reasons that she had
a criminal case against her, which she had not disclosed.
On 05.12.2022, notice was sent in the above case. Shri
Saurabh Mishra, Learned Additional Advocate General,
now appears for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet Kaur
Date: 2023.11.02
16:58:16 IST
Reason:
2
Apart from the above case, there are three other cases
today, for the same selection process, on broadly similar
footing, where notices were earlier issued and today a
statement was made in the Court by the learned counsel
Shri Saurabh Mishra that subsequent to the notice sent in
those cases, the Full Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court
on a rethinking have decided to recommend the case of the
three petitioners for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior
Division), namely of Mohammad Saify, Arun Singh Thakur
and Niranjana Malviya respectively. The only reservation
the High Court has is as to their seniority, which would be
decided by the full court. These Writ Petitions [Niranjana
Malviya (being Writ Petition (C) No.1038/2023);
Mohammed Saify (being Writ Petition (C) No.388/2023)
and Arun Singh Thakur (being Writ Petition (C)
No.423/2023)], have been disposed of today in terms of the
statement made by Learned AAG for the Madhya Pradesh
High Court, with further directions that their seniority will
operate as per the original seniority from the date of
selection, in order of merit.
3
2. Coming back to the present case, the High Court reiterates
its stand that on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the present case is not liable to be recommended for
appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The petitioner had qualified Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Examination 2019 (Phase II) and was selected for the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division), but her name did not
figure in the list of candidates who were given appointment.
On enquiry, she was told that the reasons why her name
had been deleted from the list of selected candidates was
that an FIR had been earlier registered against her for an
offence under Section 2891 of the Indian Penal Code.
Although, she had been acquitted in the said case long
back but since she had not disclosed about this case in the
selection process, her name was deleted from the list of
selected candidates. It has further been stated here that
1 289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal.— Whoever knowingly or negligently
omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against
any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such
animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
4
the petitioner was even selected earlier in 2017 for the
same post, but her candidature was rejected for the same
reason, even earlier. Moreover, this fact (denial of
appointment to her in the year 2017), has not been
disclosed by her even in her Writ Petition before this Court
(i.e., before us).
3. The petitioner has been selected as Civil Judge (Junior
Division) after qualifying in the prelims, the mains
examination and viva-voce. Moreover, we find that the fact
that she had a criminal case against her earlier and that
she was acquitted in the said case by the Trial Court was
not concealed by her. The order of acquittal has attained
finality. The petitioner before us is a gold medalist in
B.A.LL.B and has a degree of LLM. As far as the criminal
case is concerned, the facts are as follows:
The complainant (Shri Dinesh Mishra) was a
neighbour of the petitioner in Bhopal, who had lodged an
FIR against the petitioner and her father (Shri Devdutt
Pathak). It was stated by the complainant that on
22.02.2018 at about 08.30 in the night, while he was
5
returning from the market and was at the gate of his
house, the pet dog of the accused Shri Devdutt Pathak (i.e.,
father of the petitioner) and the petitioner, attacked him
and bit him on his right leg for which he had to get himself
treated in a hospital the next day. Thereafter on
13.03.2018, the dog again attacked and barked at him and
therefore the complainant was forced to lodge an FIR
against the father of the petitioner and the petitioner
herself. The petitioner and her father were released on
personal bond the same day, as the offence under Section
389 IPC is a bailable offence. Finally, in the Trial Court,
both the accused were acquitted as it was not proved that
the pet dog of the accused had bitten or attacked the
complainant and both the accused were acquitted vide an
order dated 23.05.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
First Class, Bhopal. This order of the Trial Court was
never challenged in appeal, and hence it had attained
finality. So much for the criminal case against the
petitioner!
6
4. In the present selection process, initiated for the year 2019,
for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), the petitioner
at the time of her interview had filled a form where she had
clearly stated that there was a case against her in the year
2018 under Section 289 of the IPC in which she was
acquitted. She was also asked this question in the
interview where she stated the facts, and therefore it is not
correct to say that she had concealed this fact of her so-
called “criminal antecedent” in the selection process or
before the concerned authority. This fact has not been
denied by the respondent.
5. The reasons which have now been given before us by the
High Court are that it is not the gravity of the offence
which counts, but the fact that the petitioner had not
disclosed the fact that in the earlier selection process which
was for the year 2017 her candidature was rejected for the
same reason. A reference has been given to same selection
which was made for the year 2017 where evidently the
petitioner had not disclosed the fact and therefore, she was
not appointed although she had qualified the examination.
7
The Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided
not to appoint her for the post. This decision was accepted
by the State Government. The petitioner preferred a Writ
Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which
was dismissed as was her Review. She had even filed a
Special Leave Petition (being SLP (C) Diary No.4821/2021)
against the High Court orders before this Court, in which
one of us was a member (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) which
was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn.
6. Now in the present case, which relates to the subsequent
selection process (year 2019), for the same post, one of the
reasons given by the High Court for not giving appointment
to the petitioner is her non-disclosure in the earlier
selection process (year 2017) and the fact that she had lost
her case from all the Courts including the Supreme Court.
The fact that in the present selection process the petitioner
had disclosed her so called “criminal case” and acquittal
has been admitted by the High Court. The second
objection of the High Court is that the aforesaid fact has
8
not been stated by her in the present Writ Petition, before
the Supreme Court.
7. As far as her not disclosing the fact relating to the 2017
examination and the reasons for removal of her name in
the earlier selection round are concerned, we have perused
the petition filed by the petitioner and find that this fact
has been stated by her in the List of Dates, wherein the
statement made by her for 29.11.2019 is as under:
The petitioner has also appeared and
cleared the Madhya Pradesh Judicial
Services examination in the year 2017 and
secured merit no. 13 bearing roll no. 1899.
But at that time also all the hard work of
the Petitioner has gone in vain just
because of the aforementioned criminal
case was registered against her. Although,
there was another candidate named Ashish
Dhurve who was also ineligible on the
ground that a criminal case under section
325/34 of Indian Penal Code is being
registered on him but it again shocked the
petitioner that a petty offence which has
been falsely registered on her makes her
candidature ineligible.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as of the High Court. In our considered opinion the
grounds which have been made by the High Court for not
9
giving appointment to the petitioner are not tenable. The
objections being raised by the High Court that she has not
appeared before this Court with clean hands, is not correct,
as her statement in the petition referred by us in the
preceding paragraphs makes it clear. The nature of the
offence against the petitioner is itself an extremely minor
offence under IPC. For the non-disclosure of this offence,
she has already suffered inasmuch as in the first round of
selection for the year 2017 although she was selected but
was not given appointment, and she lost her case right up
to the Supreme Court. To punish her again for the same
reason in the next selection process, is not justified in our
opinion. To put it simply, the petitioner was charged of an
offence under Section 289 IPC, for which she was acquitted
in the year 2018. This fact she had disclosed in the present
selection process, a fact which is admitted by the High
Court. Under these circumstances it is not correct to deny
her appointment which she has secured on her merit.
9. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the decision
of the High Court taken on its administrative side though
10
well intentioned, is causing a grave injustice to the
petitioner. Consequently, this Writ Petition is allowed,
impugned order dated 05.12.2022 is quashed and set
aside. The petitioner shall be given appointment to the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and we also make it
clear that her seniority will be given as per the original
seniority, i.e., from the date of her selection, in order of her
merit. She will, however, be entitled for her salary only
from the date of her joining the post.
……..............................J.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
.
…….............................J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
New Delhi,
October 17, 2023.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1038/2023
NIRANJANA MALVIYA ..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
& ANR. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 388/2023
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 423/2023
O R D E R
It is stated before us that in the subject matter of Writ Petitions Nos. 1038/2023, 388/2023 and 423/2023, the High Court has taken a decision to appoint the concerned candidates but the issue of seniority has been left to the Full Court.
In our view, there is nothing left to be decided by the Full Court as the seniority must be given as per the principles laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of C. Jayachandran vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 230 and must operate as per the original seniority from the date of selection in order of merits. However, these petitioners not having worked, albeit for no fault of theirs, will not 2 be entitled for any monetary entitlements.
Necessary action for appointment will be taken within a period of one month from today. The petitioners will, however, be entitled for their salary only from the date of their joining the post.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ....................J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 17, 2023.
3
Revised
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.2 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 379/2023
APOORVA PATHAK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 141548/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL TRANSLATOR) WITH W.P.(C) No. 1038/2023 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.194275/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) W.P.(C) No. 388/2023 (X) (IA No. 60392/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 118158/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 423/2023 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.67272/2023-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.67273/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.72971/2023- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 412/2023 (X) (IA No. 65203/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 65204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Raizada, Adv.
Mr. G.A.V. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ragav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. S.k Gangele, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Adv.4
Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Awnish Maithani, Adv. Mr. Shivam Raghuwanshi, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Jain, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.
Ms. Monica Dhingra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R W.P.(CIVIL) NOs. 1038/2023,388/2023, 423/2023 The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications stand disposed of.W.P.(CIVIL) NO. 379/2023
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.W.P.(CIVIL)NO. 412/2023
List on 20.10.2023.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Two separate signed orders are placed on the file ] 5 ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.2 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 379/2023 APOORVA PATHAK Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION IA No. 141548/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL TRANSLATOR) WITH W.P.(C) No. 1038/2023 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.194275/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) W.P.(C) No. 388/2023 (X) (IA No. 60392/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 118158/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 423/2023 (X) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.67272/2023-GRANT OF INTERIM RELIEF and IA No.67273/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.72971/2023- PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) W.P.(C) No. 412/2023 (X) (IA No. 65203/2023 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 65204/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-10-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanya Raizada, Adv. Mr. G.A.V. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ragav Gupta, Adv.
Mr. S.k Gangele, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priya Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Adv.6
Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Awnish Maithani, Adv. Mr. Shivam Raghuwanshi, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Jain, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.
Ms. Monica Dhingra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R W.P.(CIVIL) NOs. 1038/2023,388/2023, 423/2023 The writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.W.P.(CIVIL)NO. 412/2023
List on 20.10.2023.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Signed order is placed on the file ]