The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to appoint Pradeep Kumar, a candidate selected in the 2016 Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Examination, after a prolonged seven-year delay caused by allegations of espionage that were later deemed baseless. The court’s judgment stressed that “mere suspicion cannot override the rule of law.”
Case Details
The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar, secured the 27th position in the 2016 HJS direct recruitment exam and was recommended for appointment by the High Court on its administrative side. However, his appointment was stalled following allegations that he had engaged in espionage for a foreign nation in the early 2000s, for which he faced trial under the Official Secrets Act. He was acquitted in 2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, with the trial court finding no evidence to substantiate the charges.
Despite his acquittal, the State Government refused to appoint him, citing concerns over his character. This prompted Kumar to file multiple petitions over the years, challenging the denial of his appointment.
Key Legal Issues
1. Nature of Acquittal: The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of “honourable acquittal.” The court referred to precedents such as Avtar Singh vs. Union of India (2016) and Mohammad Imran vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), which emphasized that an honourable acquittal conclusively establishes innocence and cannot serve as a basis for adverse actions.
2. Lingering Suspicion vs. Rule of Law: The court scrutinized whether the State could deny public employment based on subjective suspicions after a judicial exoneration.
3. Character Certification: The State contended that Kumar’s alleged espionage activities rendered him unsuitable for judicial office. The High Court, however, found the reasoning to lack any objective basis, holding that the petitioner’s acquittal erased any presumption of guilt.
Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, a division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh underscored the principle of innocence:
“To say, a citizen would continue to be suspected of an offence alleged and therefore be deprived of fruits of hard labour and ‘honourable acquittal’ earned by him, would not only vicariously penalize an innocent citizen but would also militate against the rule of law itself, guaranteed by the Constitution.”
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish any credible evidence of espionage during the trial. It noted that allegations about Kumar’s father, a former judicial officer accused of corruption, were irrelevant and extraneous to the petitioner’s character certification.
Directive to the State
The court quashed the State’s 2019 order denying Kumar’s appointment, emphasizing the lack of fresh evidence to justify its stance. It issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to complete Kumar’s character verification within two weeks and issue his appointment letter by January 15, 2025. However, the court acknowledged that Kumar had lost seven critical years of service and ordered his appointment against a current vacancy.
Lawyers and Parties
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare, assisted by Advocate Umang Srivastava, while Additional Chief Standing Counsel Kritika Singh appeared for the State.
