Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 21-10-2022, issued by the Supreme Court Recruitment Cell, whereby his candidature for the post of Junior Court Attendant (JCA) in the establishment of the Supreme Court of India was cancelled as well as seeking a direction for his appointment to the said post. Prateek Jalan, J., held that there was no infirmity in the decision of the Supreme Court Recruitment Cell to cancel the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Junior Court Attendant (JCA).
The genesis of the case traces back to an advertisement dated 14-03-2018, inviting applications for 65 vacancies of Junior Court Attendant. The petitioner, being eligible, appeared in the written test, skill test, and medical examination, and successfully cleared all stages of the selection process. However, the controversy arose due to the registration of an FIR dated 16-08-2020, filed by the petitioner’s then wife, the marriage now stands dissolved, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Sections 307, 506, 323, and 498A of the IPC. The FIR was registered naming the petitioner as the main accused.
Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to submit his biodata, in which he disclosed the FIR. Further details were provided on request. However, his candidature was later cancelled by the Competent Authority on the ground that “candidates with criminal history are not suitable for appointment in the Supreme Court.” A petition was filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of the cancellation order and issuance of a direction to the respondent to appoint him as Junior Court Attendant. During the pendency of the petition, he was acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 10-02-2025, which he brought to the Court’s notice.
It was further stated that the petitioner was one among seven candidates with criminal antecedents, some of whom were acquitted, and the candidature of all seven was cancelled in that recruitment cycle. The respondent relied on precedents where similar decisions had been upheld and pointed out that two other candidates from this group had approached the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Apex Court on 20-01-2023.
Moreover, the Trial Court judgment in petitioner’s case recorded acquittal on benefit of doubt, holding that the evidence was only corroborative, and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent had a consistent policy of rejecting candidature even where acquittals were on technical grounds, compromises, or benefit of doubt.
The issue under consideration was whether cancellation of candidature due to pendency of criminal proceedings at the time of recruitment can be judicially interfered with.
The Court observed that this was not a case of suppression, but even in disclosed cases, the employer is empowered to assess suitability. The Court reiterated that the nature of the allegations, status of the proceedings, and post involved are critical factors and noted that the Supreme Court was justified in taking a strict view considering the sensitive nature of duties to be discharged by its staff. Further, the Court distinguished the case of Vikram Ruhal v. Delhi Police, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3351 noting that the petitioner there was not the principal accused unlike the present petitioner who was the main accused.
On the argument regarding post-acquittal reconsideration, the Court declined to accept that an acquittal (especially on benefit of doubt) mandates reconsideration, particularly when the recruitment process has already concluded. It held that this would lead to an endless reopening of selection processes. The Court remarked that “The Trial Court has concluded that the evidence against the accused falls in the category of corroborative evidence, but the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner has, thus, been acquitted on the reasoning that corroborative evidence alone cannot form the basis of a conviction. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it has clearly been stated that the Competent Authority has exercised its discretion in such cases as well, i.e. cases in which acquittal was on account of reasonable doubt, and cancelled the candidature of those candidates.”
The Court agreed with the respondent that the discretion of the employer, especially one like the Supreme Court, must be given deference unless mala fides are alleged, which was not the case here.
The Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the decision of the respondent to cancel the petitioner’s candidature, and the petition was accordingly dismissed.
[Prayas Tyagi v Supreme Court of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2343, decided on 09-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, Mr. Abishek Kumar, Mr. Pratham Chawla, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Rajshekar Rao, Sr.Adv. with Ms. Mansi Sood, Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Areeb Amanullah, Advocates for R-1 to 3 with Mr. Rajarshi Sharma.
