Supreme Court allows Jr. Judge appointment to woman denied the same due to dog bite case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed for appointment of a woman to the post of Civil Judge Junior Division, holding that the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to deny her appointment a second time due to a minor dog bite case on her, was untenable and unjust.

On a writ petition filed by Apoorva Pathak, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said she had already suffered in the 2017 Judges' selection process due to non-disclosure of the criminal case, and to punish her again in 2019 for the "so-called" criminal case was not justified, as she had cleared the examinations.

“We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the decision of the High Court taken on its administrative side, though well intentioned, is causing a grave injustice to the petitioner,” the bench said.

The court declared that the grounds made by the High Court for denying appointment to the petitioner are not tenable. It thus set aside the High Court order, passed on December 5, 2022.

The court ordered that the petitioner shall be given appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

“We also make it clear that her seniority will be given as per the original seniority, i.e., from the date of her selection, in order of her merit,” the bench said.

The bench said that the objections raised by the High Court that she has not appeared before this court with clean hands, is not correct.

The court pointed out that the nature of the offence against the petitioner is itself an extremely minor offence under IPC.

“For the non-disclosure of this offence, she has already suffered inasmuch as in the first round of selection for the year 2017 although she was selected but was not given appointment, and she lost her case right up to the Supreme Court. To punish her again for the same reason in the next selection process, is not justified in our opinion. To put it simply, the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 289 IPC, for which she was acquitted in the year 2018,” the bench said.

Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code provides the following:

"289. Negligent conduct with respect to animal.—Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

The High Court had contended that it is not the gravity of the offence which counts, but the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that in the earlier selection process which was for the year 2017 her candidature was rejected for the same reason. A reference has been given to the same selection which was made for the year 2017 where evidently the petitioner had not disclosed the fact and therefore, she was not appointed although she had qualified the examination.

The Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided not to appoint her for the post and this decision was accepted by the state government.

Pathak filed a petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, as was her review. She moved a Special Leave Petition before the apex court against the High Court order but that too was dismissed as withdrawn.

“Now in the present case, which relates to the subsequent selection process (year 2019), for the same post, one of the reasons given by the High Court for not giving appointment to the petitioner is her non-disclosure in the earlier selection process (year 2017) and the fact that she had lost her case from all the courts including the Supreme Court. The fact that in the present selection process the petitioner had disclosed her so called ‘criminal case’ and acquittal has been admitted by the High Court,” the bench said.