Read Time: 06 minutes
Without going into this aspect, the bench said, "Despite being a man of law, having practiced as an advocate, and, thereafter, served as a judicial officer, the petitioner chose to suppress the information that he had been discharged from service by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 22.09.2014. He also failed to enclose a copy of the said discharge order. That, by itself, in our view, was sufficient to reject the candidature of the petitioner'.
An indiscreet behaviour by a judicial officer in indulging in a booze party and tiff in 2014 at Lucknow continues to haunt him as after being discharged from the service in Uttar Pradesh, his candidature to Uttarakhand's Higher Judicial Service was cancelled, though he stood at serial number one in the order of merit.
On August 29, the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rahul Singh against the decision on cancellation of his candidature for suppressing the information on discharge from service in UP.
"We, therefore, do not find the action taken by the Uttarakhand High Court to be either illegal, or unreasonable, in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature," a bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal said.
On April 10, 2019, the HC invited applications from practicing advocates to fill up six vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service.
One post was open to be filled by General category candidates. The petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement, and offered his candidature as a General category candidate. He participated in the selection process, and was placed at serial no 1 in the order of merit. However, subsequently, his candidature was cancelled by the communications issued on February 22, 2020 and July 7, 2020.
In his form, the candidate disclosed that he served on UP Judicial Service as Judicial Magistrate between June 4, 2013 and September 27, 2014.
The Uttarakhand HC sought information from the Allahabad HC, which sent a confidential communication on January 10, 2020 stating that "Rahul Singh, alongwith other fellow probationers, visited Charan Club & Resort, Faizabad Road, Lucknow in the evening of 7.9.2014 and had liquor and dinner there and afterwards, a fellow probationer was manhandled by him alongwith other probationers at I.J.T.R."
Along with Singh, 10 other probationer judicial officers were discharged following the incident which was seen as huge embarassment to the judiciary.
Senior advocate Arvind Vashistha, for the petitioner submitted that, since the discharge of the petitioner was simpliciter, this court should not have acted on the basis of the confidential communication issued by the Allahabad High Court.
The respondents, however, contended petitioner lacked the requisite experience of continuous seven years’ practice as an advocate, when he applied for the post as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
The High Court also pointed out that he had failed to challenge the communication issued with regard to him before the Allahabad High Court, despite being aware of it.
"So far as the Uttarakhand High Court is concerned, it could not have ignored the said confidential communication dated 10.01.2020, only because the discharge of the petitioner, while he was a probationer, was a simpliciter discharge," the bench said.
Please Login or Register
