A person seeking appointment as district court staff must possess impeccable character, high integrity, and clean antecedents, the Allahabad High Court recently affirmed.
A Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar emphasized that appointing individuals with questionable backgrounds could harm the institution’s prestige.
“A candidate seeking an appointment in the District Court should have impeccable character and high integrity, with clean antecedents. If someone whose integrity is doubtful or whose antecedents are not clean is appointed, it can damage the institution by causing records to be misplaced or tampered with, leading to immense prejudice to litigants and shaking public confidence in the judicial system,” the order dated July 1 stated.
The Court was hearing an appeal against a single-judge order that upheld the termination of a Group ‘D’ employee at the Etah District Court.
The appellant had applied for a Group ‘D’ position in response to an advertisement dated October 27, 2022, issued by the High Court Recruitment Cell for the 2020-23 period. After passing the examination and being selected, the appellant received an appointment letter from the District Judge, Etah, and commenced work.
Although he submitted an affidavit at the time of joining, stating he had no pending criminal cases, police verification revealed a previous case under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in which he had been acquitted.
High Court instructions specified that discovering a criminal case against a candidate would result in appointment cancellation, leading to the appellant’s termination.
The appellant’s counsel argued that no criminal case was pending when applying for the position and that he was unaware of it when swearing the affidavit. It was contended that the appellant did not conceal any information and, since he was acquitted, the charges’ seriousness should have been reassessed.
The respondent’s counsel argued that, although the affidavit was sworn in May, the charge sheet had been prepared in January, and the trial court had already taken cognizance of the case. They contended that the nature of the charges and the acquittal were irrelevant, and the false affidavit justified the appointment cancellation.
The Court noted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the criminal case during the document verification process and concealed this fact when swearing the affidavit.
“The dispute relates to furnishing false information at the time of appointment. Deliberate suppression of a pending criminal case’s fact is significant, and an employer may cancel the candidature. If the criminal case was known to the candidate when filling the form or swearing the affidavit, concealing it may adversely impact the organization,” the Court noted.
Citing Rule 15 of the UP State District Court Service Rules, 2013, the Court noted that no person would be appointed unless the appointing authority is satisfied that the candidate is of good character and fully suitable for the position. Any doubt regarding a candidate’s suitability will be decided by the High Court.
With these observations, the Court upheld the single-judge order and dismissed the appeal.
Advocate Puneet Bhadauria appeared for the appellant, and Advocate Ashish Mishra appeared for the respondent.
