SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., HRISHIKESH ROY, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Avinash Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Patna through Its Registrar General - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 165 of 2017
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Re-evaluation - District Judges - The court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner who did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016, as there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time. The petitioner joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017, and the court found no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016 but joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition as there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time and found no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Issues: Qualification for district judges, re-evaluation of answer sheets, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets at the relevant time and the petitioner joining service in a subsequent batch led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner did not qualify in the selection process for district judges through direct recruitment in 2015-2016. However, it is common ground that he has since qualified and joined service in the subsequent batch of 2017.
2. There was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets at the relevant time.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has joined service after being successful in a subsequent batch, no case for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 is made out.
4. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
The absence of a provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets and the subsequent joining of service by the petitioner influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Point of Law : Judicial officer, regardless of her or his previous experience as an Advocate with seven years' practice cannot apply, and compete for appointment to any vacancy in post of District Ju....
Termination from post of Additional District and Sessions Judge is not proper when Appellant was neither in services of Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services Cadre on the date on which he applied nor w....
A candidate who participates in a selection process without challenging the criteria and the Rules pertaining to selection, cannot be allowed to challenge the process of selection or the criteria of ....
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.