Supreme Court Upholds Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Decision on Judicial Appointment Rejection

The case of Anil Bhardwaj vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning the rejection of a candidate’s appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). The Court examined whether an acquittal in a criminal case should entitle a candidate to automatic reconsideration for a judicial appointment.

The judgment highlights the principle that the mere inclusion in a select list does not create an absolute right to appointment and that judicial officers must possess impeccable character and integrity. The Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to remove the candidate from the selection process due to his criminal antecedents, despite his subsequent acquittal.

Background of the Case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an advertisement on 9 March 2017 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) through direct recruitment from eligible advocates. The appellant, Anil Bhardwaj, applied and successfully cleared the written examination and interview.

However, upon character verification, it was found that an FIR No. 852/2014 had been registered against him under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC based on a complaint by his wife. On 14 September 2018, the Law and Legislative Department of Madhya Pradesh declared the appellant ineligible and removed his name from the select list. A Gazette notification was issued on 21 September 2018 deleting his name from the merit list.

The appellant challenged this decision by filing a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed on 6 January 2020. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s (Anil Bhardwaj) Arguments

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate R. Venkataramani, argued:

• He had disclosed the pending criminal case in his application form and had not concealed any information.
• Since he was acquitted of all charges on 18 September 2019, his candidature should have been reconsidered.
• The rejection of his candidature solely based on the criminal case was unjustified.
• He possessed the necessary merit to be appointed as a District Judge.
• The decision of the High Court should be set aside, and he should be given an opportunity for reconsideration.

Respondents’ (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) Arguments

The respondents, represented by the State of Madhya Pradesh, countered:

• The selection process for judicial officers requires candidates of impeccable character and integrity.
• The pendency of a criminal case at the time of selection justified the decision to remove the appellant from the list.
• Subsequent acquittal does not automatically entitle a candidate to reconsideration.
• The selection committee, in its meeting on 18 July 2018, had already determined that the appellant was unsuitable for appointment.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

The Supreme Court, led by Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, made the following key observations:

• No Automatic Right to Appointment: Inclusion in a merit list does not create an absolute right to appointment.
• Judicial Officers Must Have Impeccable Character: The Court emphasized that judicial appointments require individuals with the highest integrity and character.
• Decision Based on Pending Case Was Justified: The selection committee was justified in declaring the appellant unsuitable due to the pending criminal case.
• Subsequent Acquittal Does Not Necessitate Reconsideration: The Court ruled that an acquittal after the conclusion of the selection process does not automatically entitle a candidate to be reconsidered.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision was upheld.
• The appellant’s removal from the select list was valid and did not warrant reconsideration.
• The mere fact that the appellant was acquitted after his selection was not sufficient to overturn the decision.
• The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to any relief.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the principle that selection for judicial positions requires candidates of the highest moral and ethical standards. The decision ensures that the judiciary maintains its integrity by reinforcing that criminal antecedents, even if later resolved, can impact a candidate’s suitability for appointment. This ruling sets an important precedent in judicial service appointments.

Petitioner Name: Anil Bhardwaj.
Respondent Name: The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 13-10-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Anil Bhardwaj vs The Hon’ble High Cou Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-10-2020.pdf