LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya

Civil Appeal · 2021 INSC 485Decided 16 Sept 2021
Civil Appeal No. 5733 of 2021
Justice K.M. Joseph · Justice P.S. Narasimha

Background

The respondent applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Rajasthan; although the application form did not require disclosure of past criminal cases, he voluntarily revealed during verification that he had been named in four old FIRs between 1999 and 2012, in two of which he was acquitted following compromises and in two of which police filed final reports (closure). A High Court committee, after reviewing the facts in light of the Supreme Court's Avtar Singh precedent, decided his acquittals were not "clean" and declined to recommend his appointment. The High Court (in judicial review) found this decision unconstitutional and ordered his appointment; the High Court (as the recruiting authority) then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that appointments to judicial posts demand the most exacting standards of character scrutiny because judges must command public confidence, and an employer's discretion to assess a candidate's "suitability" (as opposed to bare "eligibility") is given wide latitude by courts. It found the respondent's acquittals were based on compromise rather than a clean finding of innocence, and that in two of the four FIRs chargesheets had actually been filed for the non-bailable offence under Section 324 IPC. Since the committee's decision-making process was not shown to be illegal, unfair, or made in bad faith, the Court held the High Court (as a reviewing court) should not have substituted its own view for the recruiting committee's judgment. The appeal was allowed and the earlier High Court judgment ordering appointment was set aside.

Lesson Learnt

For judicial and other highly sensitive public posts, being acquitted of a past criminal case does not automatically guarantee you the job: if the acquittal came through a compromise/settlement rather than a clear finding of no wrongdoing, the appointing authority is entitled to treat that as a relevant mark against your suitability, and courts will generally not interfere with that judgment unless the process itself was flawed.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case