Rahul Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

28TH AUGUST, 2023

WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 199 OF 2021

Rahul Singh.

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.

…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner.

: Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubham Saharawat and Mr. Brijesh Kashyap, learned counsels.

Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for respondent no. 2.

:

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.

Counsel for respondent no. 3.

: Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)

The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to assail the order contained in Letter No. 1045/UHC/XIII-b-1/Admin.A/2019 dated

22.02.2020 (Annexure No. 6), and Letter No. 3014/XIII-b-1/Admin.A/2019 dated 07.07.2020. The writ petitioner is, primarily, aggrieved by rejection of his candidature for the direct recruitment post of Higher Judicial Service in the State of Uttarakhand.

2.

The High Court of Uttarakhand, vide notification dated 10.04.2019, invited applications from practicing Advocates to fill up six vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service. One post was open to be filled by General category candidates. The petitioner applied in response to the said advertisement, and offered his candidature as a General category candidate. The petitioner also participated in the selection process, and was placed at Serial No. 1 in the order of merit. However, subsequently, his candidature was cancelled by the impugned communications.

3.

The advertisement provided, in Clause 5(viii) that "candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars that are false or suppress any material information while filing up the application form".

4.

The petitioner, in his application form, provided the information, in response to Clause 12 - which reads "Any other relevant information, which is deemed fit to be mentioned", by stating that he "Served in U.P. Judicial Service as Judicial Magistrate – 1st (From 04-06-2013 TO 27-09-2014)".

5.

It appears that this Court sent a communication to Allahabad High Court on

02.12.2019 seeking information regarding the extent of involvement of the petitioner, an ex-Judicial Officer of the U.P. Judicial Service, in the incident, which resulted in termination of his probation, and his discharge simplicter by the State of Uttar Pradesh. In response to the said communication, the Allahabad High Court, acting through Shri Sushil Kumar Rastogi, H.J.S., I/c Registrar General, vide confidential communication dated 10.01.2020, stated as follows :- Sushil Kumar Rastogi, H.J.S. I/c Registrar General

"CONFIDENTIAL" D.O. No. C-70/Cf.(A)/2020 Dated: Alld. Jan. 10, 2020

Dear Sri Bonal,

I am desired to refer to your letter dated

02.12.2019 seeking information regarding the extent of involvement of Sri Rahul Singh, an ex-Judicial Officer of U.P. Judicial Service in the incident which resulted in the termination of his probation, and to inform you that Sri Rahul Singh was discharged simpliciter from service vide Government Office Memorandum No.769/Do-4-2014-15(9)/2014 dated

22.9.2014 and a Writ Petition No. 1653/SB/14-Rahul Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in the matter. I am further to inform you that Sri Rahul Singh, alongwith other fellow probationers, visited Charan Club & Resort, Faizabad Road, Lucknow in the evening of 7.9.2014 and had liquor and dinner there and afterwards, a fellow probationer was manhandled by him alongwith other probationers at I.J.T.R.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

(Sushil Kumar Rastogi)

6.

At this stage, we may also take note of the developments, which took place qua the petitioner, while he was serving as a Judicial Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

7.

It appears that 11 Judicial Officers, in the Judicial Service of the State of Uttar Pradesh, were discharged on 22.09.2014 by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The discharge order reads as follows :- "mRrj izns"k "kklu fu;qfDr vuqHkkx&4 la[;k&769@nks&4&2014&15¼9½@2014 y[kuÅ] fnukWd 22 flrEcj] 2014

dk;kZy;&Kki

dk;kZy; Kki la[;k la[;k&768@ nks&4&2014&15¼9½@2014] fnukWd 19 flrEcj] 2014 ds }kjk 11 izf"k{kq U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa dh lsok;sa rRdky izHkko ls lekIr fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr iznku dh x;h FkhA blds mijkUr egkfuca/kd] ek-mPp-U;k;ky; ds v)Z "kk-i= la[;k&14020@CF(A)@2004] fnukWd 20 flrEcj] 2014 }kjk ;g voxr djk;k x;k fd "kklu dk mDr dk;kZy; Kki fnukWd 19-09-2014 ek-QqydksVZ ds fjtksyw"ku (Resolution) fnukWd 15-09-2014 ds vuqlkj ugha gS rFkk ;g vkxzg fd;k x;k gS fd ek-QqydksVZ ds fjtksyw"ku (Resolution), ftlesa dgk x;k gS fd "the aforesaid probationer Judicial Officers were recommended to be discharged simpliciter from services for having failed to give satisfaction, as stipulated in Rule 24(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001", ds vuqlkj la"kksf/kr vkns"k tkjh fd;s tk;sA

2& vr,o dk;kZy; Kki la[;k&768@nks&4&2014&15¼9½@2014 fnukWd 19 flrEcj] 2014 dks voØfer djrs gq;s egkfucU/kd] mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds

v)Z"kkldh; i= la[;k&lh&1210@lh,Q¼,½@2014] fnukad 16&09&2014 }kjk izkIr ekti mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn dh laLrqfr ds vk/kkj ij mtiizti U;kf;d lsok fu;ekoyh] 2001 ds fu;e&24¼4½ ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr 11 izf"k{kq U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa dks uksfVl nsus ds ,ot esa HkRrksa lfgr ,d ekg dk osru nsus ds lkFk mudh lsok;sa rRdky izHkko ls lekIr fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky lg'kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA

¼1½ Jh vf[kys"k dqekj "kekZ] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½]

vktex<+

¼2½ Jh vk"kkjke ik.Ms;] flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½ ¼3½ Jh vk"kqrks'k f=ikBh] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½]

vktex<+ ¼4½ Jh v"ouh iaokj] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] y[kheiqj

[khjh ¼5½ Jh Hkkuw izrki flag] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] cgjkbp ¼6½ Jh f{krh"k ik.Ms;] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] Qrsgiqj ¼7½ Jh jkgqy flag] T;wfMf"k;y eftLVªsV] vkSjS;k ¼8½ Jh jfo dqekj lkxj] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½]

xkthiqj ¼9½ Jh lanhi flag] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] dUukSt ¼10½ Jh lq/khj feJk] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] QStkckn ¼11½ Jh fouhr dqekj] vij flfoy tt ¼twfu;j fMohtu½] ihyhHkhr

jktho dqekj izeq[k lfpo"

8.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the discharge of the petitioner was simpliciter, this Court should not have acted on the basis of the confidential communication dated 10.01.2020 issued by the Allahabad High Court.

9.

It has been argued on behalf of respondents that the petitioner lacked the requisite experience of continuous seven years' practice as an Advocate, when he applied for the post in question in response to the aforesaid advertisement. We are, however, not going into the said issue, as we do not consider it necessary to examine the same.

¶10We have considered the submissions of the learned counsels.

¶11Clause 5(viii), extracted hereinabove, clearly put all the candidates to notice that they should not furnish any particulars that are false, or suppress any material information, while filling up the application form. Despite being a man of law, having practiced as an Advocate, and, thereafter, served as a Judicial Officer, the petitioner chose to suppress the information that he had been discharged from service by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 22.09.2014. He also failed to enclose a copy of the said discharge order. That, by itself, in our view, was sufficient to reject the candidature of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner was aware of the confidential communication dated

10.01.2020 issued by the Allahabad High Court to this Court, in response to its letter dated 02.12.2019, seeking information qua the petitioner.

¶12Despite that being the position, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said communication, which could have been challenged only before the Allahabad High Court, as the said communication emanated from that Court. So far as the Uttarakhand High Court is concerned, it could not have ignored the said confidential communication dated 10.01.2020, only

because the discharge of the petitioner, while he was a probationer, was a simpliciter discharge. We, therefore, do not find the action taken by the Uttarakhand High Court to be either illegal, or unreasonable, in rejecting the petitioner's candidature.

¶13For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition, and dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

¶14Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

__________________

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 28th AUGUST, 2023 Rahul