New Delhi (Agency): The Uttarakhand High Court has rejected the petition of Rahul Singh, a candidate who secured the top position in the state’s judicial services examination in 2019. This ruling comes years after Rahul Singh faced dismissal as a magistrate in neighboring Uttar Pradesh.
Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal delivered the verdict on Monday, dismissing Rahul Singh’s plea for appointment to a judicial post in Uttarakhand.
The court’s decision was influenced by two crucial factors. Firstly, it was based on a report from the Allahabad High Court, which revealed that Rahul Singh had been terminated from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services due to a drunken brawl with his colleagues in 2014.
Secondly, the petition was also rejected because Rahul Singh had concealed vital information regarding his previous role as a judicial magistrate in Auraiya district, Uttar Pradesh. When applying for the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services in 2019, Singh failed to disclose that he had been dismissed from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services in 2014.
Rahul Singh’s tenure in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services lasted from June 2013 to September 2014, during which he was involved in a drunken altercation with his colleagues at a Lucknow club. This incident led to the termination of services for 11 judicial officers, including Rahul Singh. Following his dismissal, he pursued a career as a lawyer.
In April 2019, the recruitment process for six positions in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services commenced, and Rahul Singh applied, eventually ranking first in the merit list. However, the Uttarakhand High Court sought information about him from the Allahabad High Court.
Upon receiving information about Singh’s removal due to disciplinary proceedings, the Uttarakhand High Court, in February 2020, rejected his candidature. Subsequently, Singh approached the division bench of the Chief Justice with a review petition to challenge this decision.
However, the High Court upheld the rejection, citing that despite holding a judicial officer’s position, Singh had displayed inappropriate behavior towards his colleagues in the club. Furthermore, it was emphasized that Singh had concealed these facts from the authorities when applying for judicial positions in Uttarakhand.
In addition to these concerns, the court noted that Singh had not fulfilled the minimum criterion of practicing law for a duration of seven years, which is a requirement for Higher Judiciary Service.
This verdict reaffirms the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in the judicial profession and underscores the necessity for candidates to provide complete and accurate information about their past experiences when seeking judicial appointments.
