Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has allowed a writ petition by a candidate of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division), who was denied appointment in 2019 selection process for allegedly not disclosing rejection of her previous selection in 2017 in view of not declaring a pending criminal case related to a dog bite incident.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia quashed and set aside the decision taken by full court of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

"We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the decision of the High Court taken on its administrative side though well intentioned, is causing a grave injustice to the petitioner," the bench said.

The court has directed petitioner Apoorva Pathak be appointed, along with the seniority from the date of her selection in order of merit.

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the High Court, the bench said the grounds taken by the High Court to deny appointment to the petitioner were 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 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," the bench said.

"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," it added.

Pathak was a gold medalist in BA LLB and has a degree of LLM. Her neighbour Dinesh Mishra claimed on February 22, 2018, their pet dog has attacked him and bit him on the right leg. The dog attacked him on March 13, 2018, he then lodged an FIR under Section 298 (negligent conduct with respect to animal) of the IPC. Both the petitioner and her father were released on personal bond and the trial court on May 23, 2018 acquitted them, which was not challenged, so it attained finality.

In 2017, selection process, she was denied final appointment, though she secured 13 position in the merit list, due to non disclosure of the criminal case. She had then filed a writ petition in the High Court and subsequently in the Supreme Court and failed to get any relief.

In subsequent selection process, the petitioner was denied appointment despite selection for non-disclosure that in the earlier selection process (year 2017) and she had lost her case from all the Courts including the Supreme Court, though she disclosed the fact about the criminal case and the acquittal.