Lokesh Kumar Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4731 MP

                                                                      1                               WP-8505-2020
                                            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                       WP-8505-2020
                                            (LOKESH KUMAR DEHARIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                    Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2021
                                          Heard through Video Conferencing.

                                          Shri P.K. Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                          Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State.

With the consent finally heard.

The singular question involved in this case is whether the impugned

order dated 24th February Annexure-P/8 is liable to be interfered with whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that petitioner was exonerated from a criminal case by giving him benefit of doubt and hence he is not suitable for government employment.

Criticizing this order, Shri Naveriya placed reliance on the judgment of Criminal Court in Case No.532/2011 decided on 26/04/2012 Annexure-P/9 (with rejoinder). He submits that Para-27 of judgment clearly shows that prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this is an acquittal on merits.

Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the State by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 2016 (8) SCC 471 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court 2018 (2) MPLJ 419.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. In Ashutosh Pawar (supra) the Full Bench considered the relevant Supreme Court Judgments and opined that "eligibility" and "suitability" are two different things. The selection and appointment of a candidate is an administrative/managerial function. Employer is best suited to decide the aspect of "suitability" of candidate. It is within the province of the administration to consider the aspect of "suitability" depending upon the job nomenclature, the sensitivity of the post/department etc. This Court has Signature Not Verified SAN limited scope to adjudge on the aspect of "suitability". "Eligibility" is a Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2021.08.27 04:56:28 IST 2 WP-8505-2020 different facet. If a candidate is found to be ineligible, judicial review on Wednesbury principle is possible. It can be seen whether an eligible candidate is deprived from the right of consideration. So far as, "suitability" is concerned, the employer is the best judge to examine and decide the same. Since petitioner's exoneration, in my opinion is not on merits, indeed it is on

benefit of doubt, no fault can be found in the impugned order dated 26/08/2021.

The Full Bench in Ashutosh Pawar (supra) poignantly held that the limited scope of interference in writ jurisdiction in a case of this nature is relating to "decision making process" and not on the "decision". Para 28 of the judgment dated 26/04/2012 (Annexure-P/9) makes it clear like cloudless sky that petitioner was exonerated by giving him "benefit of doubt". This Court finds no substance in the petition. Hence, interference is declined. Petition is dismissed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE

kundan

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by KUNDAN SHARMA Date: 2021.08.27 04:56:28 IST