SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another – Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Public Service Commission and Others – Respondents
In the matter of: State of Haryana – Applicant
I.A. No. 53466 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006
Decided On : 26-09-2023
Service Law – Appointment on posts of Junior Civil Judges – [Article 234 of Constitution of India] – Appointments to judicial service of a State, other than district Judges, shall be made by Governor of State in accordance with rules made by him in that behalf, after consultation with State Public Service Commission and with High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State – Consistent pattern which has been followed by State Government is that recruitment to judicial service has been entrusted to a Selection Committee – If State Government wished to bring about any change in that position, it was incumbent upon it to consult High Court and to do so based on cogent material bearing on objective data indicating justification for abrogating involvement of High Court in conducting selection examination and overseeing the process – State Government has not placed sufficient material before Court to warrant deviation from course of action which has been pursued for over fifteen years – Request made by State Government rejected. (Paras 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Issue bears upon filling up of 175 posts of Junior Civil Judges. By its order dated 4 January 2007, this Court underscored that an independent and efficient judicial system is part of basic structure of Constitution and that if a sufficient number of Judges is not appointed, dispensation of justice to citizens would be seriously affected. Court noted that the judicial system faces problems arising out of delays in dispensation of justice for which one of major causes is an insufficient number of Judges when compared to large number of cases pending or in relation to the judge-population ratio. In this backdrop, Court issued directions, noting that it had become necessary to take steps to ensure that vacancies in judicial institutions are filled on a timely basis.
Findings of Court:
There is an urgent need to ensure that existing 175 vacancies of Junior Civil Judges are filled up at the earliest. State Government shall within a period of two weeks from date of this order, take necessary steps to ensure that recruitment is conducted by a Committee consisting of (i) three Judges of High Court nominated by Chief Justice; (ii) the Chief Secretary of State of Haryana; (iii) Advocate General of Haryana and (iv) Chairperson of Haryana Public Service Commission.
Result : Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
1. An application has been filed by the State of Haryana in the proceedings in Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006 seeking two directions:
(i) The recruitment of judicial officers in the Judicial Branch of the Haryana Civil Service be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 19511 [“Rules”] (as applicable to State of Haryana).
(ii) The order of this Court dated 12 February 2009 in I.A. No. 60 of 2008 filed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana be modified.
2. The issue bears upon the filling up of 175 posts of Junior Civil Judges.
3. By its order dated 4 January 2007, this Court underscored that an independent and efficient judicial system is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that if a sufficient number of Judges is not appointed, the dispensation of justice to citizens would be seriously affected. The Court noted that the judicial system faces problems arising out of delays in the dispensation of justice for which one of the major causes is an insufficient number of judges when compared to the large number of cases pending or in relation to the judge-population ratio. In this backdrop, the Court issued directions, noting that it had become necessary to take steps to ensure that vacancies in judicial institutions are filled on a timely basis.
4. The relevant part of the order of this Court is extracted below:
“Before we issue general directions and the time schedule to be adhered to for filling vacancies that may arise in subordinate courts and district courts, it is necessary to note that selections are required to be conducted by the concerned authorities as per the existing Judicial Service Rules in the respective States/Union Territories. We may, however, note that, progressively, the concerned authorities would consider, discuss and eventually may arrive at a consensus that the selection process be conducted by the High Court itself or by Public Service Commission under the control and supervision of the High Court. In this regard, considerable progress has already been made. Reference can be made to the decision taken in a Conference held between the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, minutes whereof show that in some of the States, selection of subordinate judicial officers at all levels of civil judges is already being made by the High Courts. Some States, where selection is still being made by the Public Service Commission, were agreeable to entrust the selection to the High Courts whereas Chief Ministers/Ministers of Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala were of the view that the present system may continue but the decision taken jointly was that in the said States [Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala] setting up of question papers and evaluation of answer sheets be entrusted to the High Court. Further decision taken was that in other States where selection of subordinate judicial officers is not being done by the High Courts, such selection be entrusted to the High Courts by amending relevant Rules. In this connection, with the affidavit filed on behalf of the Calcutta High Court, a copy of the letter dated 15th September, 2006, addressed by the Registrar General of the said Court to the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, has also been annexed. That letter refers to the aforesaid decision taken in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices held on 11th March, 2006 requesting the State Government for effecting suitable amendment in the recruitment rules in terms of the decision in the Conference above-referred. At this stage, however, these are not the issues for our consideration. As already indicated, the selection is to be conducted by authorities empowered to do so as per the existing Rules.”
5. In the above observations, the Court observed that selections are required to be conducted i
(1) Constitutionality of Rules stipulating minimum qualifying marks in viva voce test as a part of selection criteria for appointment to District Judiciary in the States of Bihar and Gujarat respecti....
The High Court's revision of eligibility criteria for judicial promotions, requiring separate minimum marks in written and viva voce, is valid, distinguishing between different recruitment methods wh....
Administrative authorities cannot implement or rely upon draft, unnotified rule amendments to alter eligibility criteria or recruitment sources until such rules are formally gazetted and gain statuto....
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.