Judicial Appointments: Cannot turn the clock back on rejection of candidate who is acquitted at a later date, Supreme Court rules

The Supreme Court has held that if the Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee for appointment of judges takes a decision based on a pending criminal case, then the "clock cannot be turned backwards" on such a decision after the candidate is acquitted at a later date..The verdict was passed by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah in a petition preferred by a lawyer who sought to be appointed as a District Judge (entry level) in Madhya Pradesh..Though he featured in the provisional list, the appellant could not be appointed as there was a pending criminal case against him filed by his wife. When this came to light, the state government deleted his name from the provisional list.This prompted the appellant to file a writ petition in the High Court challenging this decision..The FIR against the appellant was lodged by his wife under Section 498A and 406 IPC in the year 2014 on the basis of which a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court in July 2017. The appellant had disclosed the lodging of the FIR against him in his online application form..By a judgment passed in September 2019, the High Court acquitted the appellant of the charge framed against him..The appellant then amended his writ petition, bringing to light the order of acquittal. However, the High Court dismissed the amended petition, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court..The Apex Court primarily looked at whether in view of the subsequent acquittal of the appellant, his case was required to be reconsidered and he was entitled to be appointed as a district judge.The Bench held that the decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was based on a relevant consideration, and that there was no mala-fides surrounding the same.."Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward."Supreme Court.The Court further noted that the fact that the appellant was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case did not furnish sufficient ground for reconsidering him for appointment to the post..Another argument raised by the appellant was that the decision declaring him unsuitable on the ground of pendency of a criminal case was contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh for character verification. He submitted that as per paragraph 6(viii) of the guidelines, on acquittal, the candidate will be eligible for government service. Dismissing this contention, the Court held,"The above clause (viii) as quoted above cannot come to the rescue of the appellant who at the time of character verification or at the time of consideration of the case of the appellant by the committee on 18.07.2018 had not been acquitted.".Noting that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the appellant's petition, the Court concluded,"...while dismissing this appeal we observe that stigma, if any, of the criminal case lodged against appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC is washed out due to the acquittal of the appellant vide judgment dated 18.09.2019.".The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate R Venkataramani..[Read judgment]