B.S.CHAUHAN, J.CHELAMESWAR, M.Y.EQBAL
Renu – Appellant
Versus
District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding public employment, appointments, and recruitment in judicial institutions:
1. Constitutional Mandate for Equality and Fairness * All public appointments must adhere to the provisions of the Constitution, specifically Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment), as well as statutory rules made by the legislature. * Any appointment made in violation of Articles 14 and 16 is irregular, illegal, and a nullity, regardless of the duration of service. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * The rule of law is a basic feature of the Constitution, and no authority, including the judiciary, is above the law. (!) (!)
2. Prohibition of Back-Door Appointments and Ad-Hocism * Appointments without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market are violations of the Constitution. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment to cure illegality arising from back-door entries or contravention of rules. (!) (!) (!) (!) * The practice of appointing staff on an ad-hoc basis for short periods and continuing them after breaks is deprecated. (!) (!) (!) * Those who enter through the back door must leave through the same door; their appointments cannot be saved by condoning irregularities. (!) (!) (!)
3. Transparency and Public Notice Requirements * Transparency is a mandatory requirement for public appointments. * Vacancies must be advertised in at least two newspapers (one in a vernacular language) and through the local employment exchange. (!) (!) * The advertisement must specify the number of posts, qualifications, eligibility criteria, and the schedule of the recruitment process. (!) * Selection must be done by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee using rational criteria (written exam, interview, etc.). (!) (!)
4. Powers of the Chief Justice of the High Court (Article 229) * Under Article 229(1), the Chief Justice has the power to appoint officers and servants of the High Court to safeguard judicial independence. (!) (!) (!) * However, this power is not unfettered and is subject to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (!) (!) (!) * The Chief Justice cannot make appointments in contravention of statutory rules or without following the principles of natural justice. (!) (!) * Discretion exercised by the Chief Justice must be guided by law and known principles, not by whim or caprice. (!)
5. Administrative Control over Subordinate Courts (Article 235) * The power of the High Court under Article 235 to exercise superintendence over subordinate courts extends to all functionaries, including ministerial and administrative staff. (!) (!) * This control is exclusive, comprehensive, and effective in its operation. (!) * The High Court must ensure that appointments in subordinate courts also comply with Articles 14 and 16. (!)
6. Directives Issued by the Supreme Court * All High Courts are directed to re-examine their statutory rules regarding staff appointments and modify them if they conflict with Articles 14 and 16. (!) * Vacancies must be filled strictly in compliance with statutory rules; appointments made in contravention are void ab-initio. (!) * Recruitment should be undertaken on a regular basis (at least once a year) to avoid shortages and the need for ad-hoc appointments. (!) * High Courts are advised to consider centralizing the recruitment system for subordinate court staff to ensure transparency and transferability. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. The matter initially related to the appointment of Class IV employees in the courts subordinate to Delhi High Court as the dispute arose about the continuity of the employees appointed on ad-hoc basis for 89 days which stood extended for the same period after same interval from time to time. The matter reached the Delhi High Court and ultimately before this Court. This court vide order dated 10.5.2012 took up the matter in a larger perspective taking cognizance of perpetual complaints regarding irregularities and illegalities in the recruitments of staff in the subordinate courts throughout the country and in order to ensure the feasibility of centralising these recruitments and to make them transparent and transferable. This Court suo motu issued notice to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts and to the States for filing their response mainly on two points viz. (i) why the recruitment be not centralized; and (ii) why the relevant rules dealing with service conditions of the entire staff be not amended to make them as transferable posts. All the States and High Courts have submitted their response and all of them are duly represented in the cour
I.R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of Tamil Nadu
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh
Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.
J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. v. State of U.P.
M.P. Housing Board v. Manoj Shrivastava
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd. v. S.C. Pandey
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ku. Sandhya Tomar
Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao
Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty
The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao
Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India
B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu
Commissioner and Secretary to Govt., Haryana
Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto
Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo
State of U.P. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association
The State of West Bengal v. Nripendra Nath Bagchi
Shri Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra
Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh
Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. R. Perachi
M. Gurumoorthy v. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland
H.C. Puttaswamy v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore
State of Assam v. Bhubhan Chandra Datta
Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto
Pradyat Kumar Bose v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh v. L.V.A. Dikshitulu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.