The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the rejection of a Higher Judicial Service aspirant's candidature and directed the competent authority to reconsider his case, observing that the criminal cases registered against him during his student days did not involve offences of moral turpitude. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 317]

The Court noted that the cases stemmed from a protest over the poor quality of food in a university hostel mess and ended in acquittal after compromise.

The division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice BP Sharma observed:

"Here, petitioner when pursuing his L.L.B. course resided in hostel. In hostel mess, quality of food was bad, therefore, agitated students held demonstration in front of the Officers of University, which precipitated the chain of events, in which allegation against other co-accused and petitioner was regarding holding of demonstration. At that time, when a person is young and studying in a hostel may be compelled by the circumstances, may participate (may be by compulsion/ peer pressure) without any mens rea to commit crime. Such incidents are to be seen in context with perspective. Otherwise, essence of the situation would be overlooked".

A writ petition was filed by a candidate appearing for the M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Direct Recruitment from Bar) Examination-2017, challenging the order of the administrative side of the High Court and the consequential order passed by the State rejecting the petitioner's candidature and expunging his name from the provisional waiting list.

Per the facts, the petitioner, while applying for the exam, filed an attestation affidavit disclosing his involvement in two criminal cases in 2002. Upon final declaration of result, the petitioner secured 234 marks out of 450 and secured serial number 7 in the waiting list for unreserved candidates.

However, despite his high merit and transparent disclosure, the Administrative Committee resolved not to recommend the petitioner's case for due appointment due to the said criminal cases without considering that he was acquitted in both.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the said criminal cases were filed over a minor altercation regarding the food quality of the University's mess. The petitioner was acquitted in both cases after the cases were compounded between the parties. It was claimed that no serious assault or deadly weapon was used.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the incident was over 16 years old and, other than these cases, the petitioner had a clean academic and professional record. The petitioner has practised actively as an advocate for more than 10 years. The counsel also relied on the character verification report by the Superintendent of Police, explicitly stating that the petitioner was suitable for government service.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that his co-accused in said criminal cases was appointed to the judicial service by the High Court in 2010 and was currently serving in Ratlam as District Judge.

The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner gained no vested right to appointment merely because his name was included in the waiting list. It was argued that the position of District Judge requires exceptional integrity. The counsel argued that the fact that the petitioner's acquittal was based on compromise does not qualify as an honourable acquittal on the merits.

Referring to the circular of July 24, 2018 issued by the Home Department, the court noted that Clause II(A) mentions that if a case registered against a candidate is of simple nature and he is acquitted by the Trial Court and if he has or has not mentioned this fact in his verification form, his candidature shall be treated for suitable government service. A list was also included with this circular containing a list of offences consisting of moral turpitude.

The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner did not constitute moral turpitude. The court noted that the petitioner was residing in his hostel during his LLB course and the food quality was bad and therefore, the agitated students held a demonstration in front of University officers which precipitated the chain of events.

Regarding the candidature of the petitioner, the court held

"It is true that this Court cannot issue directions directly for appointment but can only issue directions for consideration, if case is found worthy of consideration. Here, the case appears to be such where competent authority is required to reconsider the whole gamut of facts and circumstances of the case".

The bench further interestingly noted that the petitioner's co-accused was also appointed as a Judicial officer and is presently serving as Civil Judge. Accordingly, the bench allowed the petition and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.

Case Title: RKJ v State of MP, WP-9838-2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 317

For Petitioner: Advocate Kabeer Paul

For State: Government Advocate Kanak Gaharwar

For High Court (Administrative): Advocate Siddharth Seth

Click here to read/download the Order