<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has come to the relief of a woman, who was twice denied appointment to the post of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division), despite finally qualifying the selection process.</p><p>Petitioner Apoorva Pathak was first declined an appointment in 2017 due to non-disclosure of a criminal case related to a dog bite and second time in 2019 for not disclosing the rejection of her appointment in 2017.</p><p>Taking up her writ petition, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the decision taken by the full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>"We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the decision of the High Court taken on its administrative side though well-intentioned, is causing a grave injustice to the petitioner," the bench said.</p><p>After hearing petitioner's counsel advocate Namit Saxena, the bench said the objections raised by the High Court that she has not appeared before this court with clean hands, is not correct, as her statement in the petition makes it clear. </p><p>"The nature of the offence against the petitioner is itself an extremely minor offence under IPC. For the non-disclosure of this offence, she has already suffered inasmuch as in the first round of selection for the year 2017 although she was selected but was not given an appointment, and she lost her case right up to the Supreme Court," the bench said.</p><p>The court directed giving an appointment to the petitioner along with the seniority from the date of her selection in order of merit.</p><p>In its detailed order, the bench said to punish her again for the same reason in the next selection process, is not justified. </p> .SC comes to rescue of US boy, allows distant Indian cousin to donate liver.<p>"To put it simply, the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 289 IPC, for which she was acquitted in the year 2018. This fact she had disclosed in the present selection process, a fact which is admitted by the High Court. Under these circumstances it is not correct to deny her appointment which she has secured on her merit," the bench added.</p><p>The petitioner, who was a gold medalist in BA LLB and has a degree of LLM, suffered the ordeal after her neighbour lodged an FIR in 2018 after her dog allegedly bit him.</p><p>On May 23, 2018, the trial acquitted her. However, in the 2017, selection process, she was denied a final appointment due to non-disclosure of the criminal case. She approached the High Court and the Supreme Court but could not get any relief.</p><p>In the 2019 selection process, she was again denied an appointment. It was contended she did not disclose that she was previously declined the selection.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has come to the relief of a woman, who was twice denied appointment to the post of Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division), despite finally qualifying the selection process.</p><p>Petitioner Apoorva Pathak was first declined an appointment in 2017 due to non-disclosure of a criminal case related to a dog bite and second time in 2019 for not disclosing the rejection of her appointment in 2017.</p><p>Taking up her writ petition, a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia set aside the decision taken by the full court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>"We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the decision of the High Court taken on its administrative side though well-intentioned, is causing a grave injustice to the petitioner," the bench said.</p><p>After hearing petitioner's counsel advocate Namit Saxena, the bench said the objections raised by the High Court that she has not appeared before this court with clean hands, is not correct, as her statement in the petition makes it clear. </p><p>"The nature of the offence against the petitioner is itself an extremely minor offence under IPC. For the non-disclosure of this offence, she has already suffered inasmuch as in the first round of selection for the year 2017 although she was selected but was not given an appointment, and she lost her case right up to the Supreme Court," the bench said.</p><p>The court directed giving an appointment to the petitioner along with the seniority from the date of her selection in order of merit.</p><p>In its detailed order, the bench said to punish her again for the same reason in the next selection process, is not justified. </p> .SC comes to rescue of US boy, allows distant Indian cousin to donate liver.<p>"To put it simply, the petitioner was charged with an offence under Section 289 IPC, for which she was acquitted in the year 2018. This fact she had disclosed in the present selection process, a fact which is admitted by the High Court. Under these circumstances it is not correct to deny her appointment which she has secured on her merit," the bench added.</p><p>The petitioner, who was a gold medalist in BA LLB and has a degree of LLM, suffered the ordeal after her neighbour lodged an FIR in 2018 after her dog allegedly bit him.</p><p>On May 23, 2018, the trial acquitted her. However, in the 2017, selection process, she was denied a final appointment due to non-disclosure of the criminal case. She approached the High Court and the Supreme Court but could not get any relief.</p><p>In the 2019 selection process, she was again denied an appointment. It was contended she did not disclose that she was previously declined the selection.</p>
