SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 998

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr AAG Haryana Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
For the Amicus : Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Ms. Riddhima Juneja, Adv. Mr. Japnish Singh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. James P. Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Naresh Bakshi, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Gajendra Singh Negi, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Pathak, Adv. Ms. Harsha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. S. Shashank Reddy, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR M/S. Plr Chambers And Co. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Arjun Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Anil K. Jha, AOR Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, AOR Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravish Singh, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avijeet Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Sweta Singh, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Ms. Kriti Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Mr. Krishnayan Sen, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Sai Shashank, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Ms. Binu Tamta, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Dubey, Adv. Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, AOR Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Ms. S. Janani, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Ms. Asha Jain Madan, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR Mr. K. K. Mohan, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. Siddharth, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Agrawal, Adv. Mr. R. Nedumaran, AOR Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR Mr. B. Balaji, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, A.A.G. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Ms. Aastha Shrestha, Adv. Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Japneesh S Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Ridhima S Juneja, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AOR Mr. John Mathew, Adv. Mr. Dharam Veer Yadav, Adv. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Omprakash Ajitsingh Parihar, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Sayaree Basu Mallik, AOR Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Ms. Sarvshree, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR Mr. Surender Kumar Gupta, AOR Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Anoop Rattan, AG Mr. P.K. Thakur, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
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 – If State Government wish to bring about any change in that position, it is incumbent upon it to consult High Court.

Headnote:

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top