The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by one Mohammad Imran, who challenged the cancellation of his selection to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class citing an unfavourable police verification report.
The bench of Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Sarang Kotwal was hearing the case.
The petitioner was selected after giving an interview and his name was recommended for selection by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to the post of CJJD and JMFC.
Thereafter, petitioner received a communication dated June 4, 2010, informing him that the police verification report was unfavourable and, thus, his selection stood cancelled.
The unfavourable police report was due to the brief criminal record of the petitioner. Although he was acquitted, the petitioner was tried for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
Submissions and Final Judgment
Senior advocate RS Apte appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that his client never concealed the fact that he was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 read with 34 of IPC.
He further submitted that despite the disclosure of the fact that the petitioner was tried and acquitted in the criminal case, the MPSC had recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh to assert that the state could not have disqualified the petitioner for the post of CJJD and JMFC after the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case.
Appearing for the respondent, RS Datar argued that the police verification report was adverse to the petitioner as he was tried for serious offences involving moral turpitude and the post for which the petitioner had applied, would require appointment of persons with impeccable character and conduct.
Datar argued that the antecedents of an applicant would surely be one of the tests while appointing a candidate in the judicial services. He relied on judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration and Others vs Sushil Kumar to substantiate his submission.
After hearing all submissions, the court concluded:
We find from the judgment of the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions case No.173 of 2000 that the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with 34 of the IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had facilitated the kidnapping of a minor girl who was allegedly raped by the accused no.1 in the said case. On a reading of the entire judgment of the sessions case, it appears that all the three accused were acquitted mainly because the prosecutrix had turned hostile and was declared as such. In the circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the action on the part of the respondent no.1 of cancelling the selection of the petitioner by the communication dated 04/06/2010. The judgment in the case of Joginder Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case in hand as in that case the offence for which the petitioner was charged did not relate to moral turpitude like the case in hand.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.