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

2024 Supreme(SC) 112

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR
Sushil Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Vinay Navare, Mahesh Thakur, Neha Singh, Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Shivamm Sharrma, Shivani, Prithvi Pal, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Manoj Jain, K. Karpagavinagagam, Kiran Bhardwaj, C. Aravind, K.V. Mathu Kumar, Geeta Verma, Syed Imtiyaz, Usman Khan, Madhurima Sarangi, Naeem Ilyas, Towseef Ahmad Dar, Dushyant Dave, Meenakshi Arora, Danish Zubair Khan, Lokendra Malik, Surya Nath Pandey, Jayant K. Sud, Durga Dutt, Rohit Priyadarshi, Upendra Narayan Mishra, Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Rashi Verma, Somesh Kumar Dubey, Kartik Jasra, Prannit Stefano, Shivam Nagpal.
For the Respondents: Jaideep Gupta, Susmita Lal, Racheeta Chawla, Kamakhya Srivastava, Arunabh Chowdhury, Rajiv Shanker Dvivedi, Tulika Mukherjee, Karma Dorjee, Dechen W. Lachungpa, Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, Danish Zubair Khan.

JUDGMENT :

1. In these two writ petitions, we are to address the legality of the selection process of District Judge Cadre in the State of Jharkhand initiated in the year 2022. An advertisement bearing No. 01/2022 was published on 24th March, 2022, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the said posts. The vacancies specified in the advertisement itself were twenty-two. Appointment procedure to the said posts is guided by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 (‘the 2001 Rules’). In the year 2017, the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2017 (“the 2017 Regulation”) was framed in terms of Rule 11 and Rule 30 of the 2001 Rules for this purpose.

2. On the basis of cut-off marks specified in the advertisement as also in the 2001 Rules, select list of sixty-six persons was published, applying the 1:3 ratio as there were twenty-two published vacancies.

3. The High Court on its administrative side, however, recommended only thirteen candidates for appointment though the vacancies declared were twenty-two. A resolution to that effect was taken in a

    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 telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top