Competent authority must reconsider appointment representation after subsequent acquittal, without prejudging its merits.

The petitioner, serving as a Patwari, appeared in the 2018 Limited Departmental Examination/Recruitment Test conducted for direct recruitment to the post of Nayab Tehsildar.

He secured 152.491 out of 200 marks and stood first in the merit list.

His appointment was not issued because Criminal Case/RCT No. 9283/2014, involving offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3(D)(1-2)/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937, was pending against him.

His earlier writ petition challenging the non-appointment was dismissed on 3 October 2019, and his review petition was dismissed on 11 March 2024.

Subsequently, he was acquitted in the criminal case by judgment dated 9 April 2026.

The petitioner also relied on the appointment/promotion of similarly situated candidate Bhanu Pratap Singh as Nayab Tehsildar pursuant to an order dated 30 April 2026.

The petitioner sought quashing of the disqualification list, appointment/promotion with consequential benefits, or alternatively consideration of his representation.

The State opposed the petition.

Whether, in view of the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal in the criminal case, his representation seeking appointment/promotion as Nayab Tehsildar was required to be considered by the competent authority?

Whether the appointment/promotion of the similarly situated candidate, Bhanu Pratap Singh, was a relevant circumstance requiring consideration by the competent authority?

Whether the High Court should itself quash the disqualification list or grant appointment and arrears of pay to the petitioner?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider a relevant representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, particularly where subsequent material circumstances may affect the decision.

The Court treated the petitioner’s subsequent acquittal and the appointment/promotion of a similarly situated candidate as relevant considerations, without determining the petitioner’s substantive entitlement.

No precedent or independent statutory rule on appointment after acquittal was cited or adjudicated upon in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner had ranked first in the merit list but had not been appointed because of the then-pending criminal case.

Since he was subsequently acquitted and a similarly situated candidate had been appointed/promoted, the Court held that these changed circumstances justified reconsideration of his case by the competent authority.

However, the Court did not itself decide whether the acquittal extinguished the disqualification or created an enforceable right to appointment, nor did it grant arrears or consequential benefits.

Instead, it required the authority to independently examine the representation, specifically considering the acquittal and the treatment of Bhanu Pratap Singh.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh and detailed representation to the competent authority within two weeks.

Upon receipt of the representation and a certified copy of the order, the authority was directed to consider and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within two months.

The authority was specifically directed to consider the petitioner’s acquittal dated 9 April 2026 and the appointment/promotion of Bhanu Pratap Singh dated 30 April 2026.