Mohammad Imran, who faced a trial for being an accomplice for an alleged sexual assault and kidnapping a young girl, is now considered to be appointed as a judicial officer by the Supreme Court.
Imran, when he was 21-years-old, was allegedly an accomplice to a man, who had kidnapped and sexually assaulted a young girl in 2000. However, during the trial, all the accused were acquitted, according to TOI.
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission had recommended him for the judicial officer's post which the Maharashtra state government was vehemently against. It said that the post required a person with a certain reputation and conduct and that Imran was acquitted in an abduction case.
According to the TOI report, the state said, "Since Imran was involved in an act of moral turpitude in kidnapping the girl in question, mere acquittal because of the girl turning hostile could not make him suitable for judicial officer's job."
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Navin Sinha said in a statement that everyone deserves a fair chance at employment in a time when employment is scarce.
They said, " Every individual deserves an opportunity to improve, learn from the past and move ahead in life by self-improvement. To make past conduct, irrespective of all considerations, an albatross around the neck of the candidate may not always constitute justice. Much will depend on the fact situation of a case."
Justice Sinha said, "Undoubtedly, judicial service is very different from other services and the yardstick of suitability that may apply to other services may not be the same for a judicial service. But there cannot be any mechanical or rhetorical incantation of moral turpitude to deny appointment in judicial service.
"Employment opportunity is a scarce commodity in our country. Every advertisement invites a large number of aspirants for a limited number of vacancies.
"We are not convinced that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, Imran could be discriminated and denied appointment arbitrarily when both the appointments were in judicial service, by the same selection procedure, of persons facing criminal prosecution and were acquitted."
Imran was represented by lawyer Huzefi Ahmedi who argued that Imran had disclosed details of his past and also details of his trial to the concerned authorities.
The Supreme Court has requested the state government to reconsider their stand.
