Person Seeking Appointment In District Courts Must Have Impeccable Character & High Integrity Without Criminal Antecedents: Allahabad High Court

The bench comprising of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar held

“a candidate seeking an appointment in the District Court judgeship should be of impeccable character and high integrity, and his antecedents should be clean and if a person whose integrity is doubtful or his antecedents are not clean is appointed, that can damage the institution inasmuch as if the Court records are misplaced or tampered which would cause immense prejudice to the litigants and also shake the confidence of the public in the judicial system which would eventually result in serious damage to the prestige of the institution.”

Factual Background

Appellant applied for Group "D" post pursuant to the advertisement No.02/Sub Court/Group 'D'/2022 dated 27.10.2022 issued by the High Court Recruitment Cell in the year 2020- 23. Appellant was successful in the examination and was selected for the post. Subsequently, District Judge, Etah had issued appointment letter and the appellant started working.

Though appellant at the time of joining had submitted an affidavit stating that he had no criminal case pending against him, upon police verification if was found that case under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC was registered against the appellant where he had been acquitted.

Since the High Court instructions stated that subsequent discovery of criminal case against a candidate would lead to cancellation of appointment, appellant's services were terminated. Appellant filed a writ petition against his termination. The Single Judge upheld the termination order.

Challenging the order of the Single Judge, counsel for appellant argued that no criminal case was pending against the appellant at the time of filling of the form and the appellant had no knowledge of the criminal case at the time swearing in of the affidavit. It was argued that the appellant had not concealed the fact. It was argued that once the appellant was acquitted, the charges and seriousness of the offences ought to have been examined.

Per contra, counsel for respondent argued that while affidavit was sworn in May, the chargesheet had been prepared in January and cognizance of the case had already been taken by the competent Trial Court. It was argued that the nature of charges and acquittal is irrelevant. Since false information was furnished on affidavit, the appointment was rightly cancelled.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the appellant had received notice under Section 41-A CrPC in January itself, therefore he knew about the criminal case at the time of filing the affidavit.

“The verification of character and antecedents of an employee are to be ensured by the employer. The character and integrity of a candidate, who is seeking appointment in the District Judgeship must be impeccable and his/ her antecedents should be clean. If a person, whose integrity is doubtful, and his/ her antecedents are not clean, he cannot claim appointment as the same may adversely affect the institution.”

The Court observed that having criminal antecedents does not automatically cancel candidature of a person. However, since there was deliberate concealment of facts in the present case, the Court held that appointment can be cancelled by the employer as deliberate concealment may impact the organization itself.

Reliance was placed on Rule 15 of U.P. State District Court Service Rules, 2013 which provides that “no person shall be appointed unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respect suitable for appointment to the service.” It further provides that the person shall furnish a character certificate from two unrelated persons and the decision of the High Court shall be final in case of any doubt regarding the suitability of a candidate.

The Court relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court to hold that integrity and high standard of conduct is essential from an employee. Observing the Single Judge had dealt with all aspects of the case, the Court upheld the termination order as well as the order of the Single Judge.

Accordingly, the special appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Ram Sewak vs. Honble High Court Judicature At Allahabad Recruitment Cell And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 440 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 557 of 2024]

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 440