All people facing prosecution and then facing problems in getting private jobs due to some overzealous (read stupid) HR departments can use this Mumbai HC judgment in their favour. Sue the particular company for Rs 1 Crore at least for denying the job opportunity not based on merit, but on frivolous reasons.
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money. Use coupon code MenToo to get 52% discount and help it win Sales Contest to promote #MenToo awareness. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues(PDF book)
MUMBAI: In an important order, the Bombay High Court has held that a candidate who has been selected for the post of a Magistrate or a Judge cannot be denied the appointment merely because he is facing prosecution.
“It cannot be laid down as a rule that merely because he is facing prosecution he must be denied an appointment because indeed the candidate may be facing prosecution for a frivolous reason or for trifles”, observed Justice S A Bobde and Justice P D Kode recently.
Hearing a petition filed by aggrieved candidate and Buldana-based lawyer, the bench held that it would be open for the Government to make an appointment of such a candidate.
In this case the government had refused to appoint the petitioner as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) on the ground that he was facing prosecution in a dowry harassment case for offence under section 498A read with section 34 IPC.
“The question that arises is whether the reason that a candidate for selection to JMFC’s post is facing prosecution under section 498A IPC is a strong and cogent reason for not accepting the recommendation of the selection committee”.
“We find that the term ‘strong and cogent’ reason cannot be defined by its very nature and indeed has not been defined. Whether a reason such as pending prosecution of a candidate is strong and cogent, would depend on the fact of each case but it cannot be laid down as a rule that merely because he is facing prosecution the appointment should be denied to him.