B. R. GAVAI, M. M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Rejanish K. V. – Appellant
Versus
K. Deepa – Respondent
The key paragraph saving appointments is (!) .
This paragraph states: "Consequently, all such rules framed by the State Governments in consultation with the High Courts which are not in accordance with the aforesaid answers shall stand quashed and set aside." It explicitly limits the quashing to non-compliant rules only, thereby preserving all prior appointments made under compliant rules or processes. Additionally, (!) reinforces this by clarifying prospective application: "what we have held in this judgment will be applicable only from the date of this judgment and in no case, any selection process completed, or any appointment made prior to this judgment would be affected." Together, these ensure appointments remain valid unless directly invalidated by interim orders.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
INDEX | |
A. INTRODUCTION | |
B. SUBMISSIONS | |
C. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION | |
D. PROVISION OF LAW AND PRECEDENTS | |
i. Text of Article 233 of the Constitution | |
ii. Case Laws | |
a. Rameshwar Dayal v. The State of Punjab and Others | |
b. Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others | |
c. State of Assam and Another v. Kuseswar Saikia and Others | |
d. A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others | |
e. Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others | |
f. Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another | |
g. Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others | |
h. Vijay Kumar Mishra and Another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna | |
i. Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi | |
j. All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others | |
E. CONSIDERATION | |
i. Textual and Contextual Interpretation | |
ii. Scheme of Article 233 of the Constitution | |
iii. Recommendations of the Shetty Commission | |
iv. Experience of a Judicial Officer | |
v. Interpretation of a Constitutional Provision cannot be pedantic | |
vi. Eligibility of a Judicial Officer for Direct Recruitment | |
vii. Break in practice of a prospective candidate | |
viii. Quota for Advocates under Article 233(2) | |
ix. Doctrin | |
Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401 [Para 7.i
Union of India and Another v. Hansoli Devi and Others (2002) 7 SCC 273 [Para 7.ii
Rameshwar Dayal v. The State of Punjab and Others
Harbhajan Singh v. Press Council of India and Others (2002) 3 SCC 722 [Para 7.vi] – Referred
Deepak Aggarwal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others
Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others
All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 [Para 8.ii
State of Assam and Another v. Kuseswar Saikia and Others
A. Panduranga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Satya Narain Singh v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others
Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another
Vijay Kumar Mishra and Another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna
Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Others
Vivek Narayan Sharma and Others (Demonetisation Case – 5 J) v. Union of India and Others
Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of H.P.
Leela Dhar v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court and Others
All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India and Others
Property Owners Association and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Property Owners Association VS State of Maharashtra - 2024 8 Supreme 387: Labeled as "Binding Precedent" with explanation that the majority decision constitutes the binding judgment, depending on bench strength. This explicitly indicates authoritative status.
State Of Bihar VS Bal Mukund Sah - 2000 2 Supreme 409: Marked as "Very Important Points" outlining a complete constitutional scheme under Articles 233 and 234, with specific holdings on recruitment and reservations not applying to judiciary cadres. Indicates strong authoritative weight.
All India Judges Association VS Union Of India - 2002 3 Supreme 180: Marked as "VERY" and states that recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission have been "accepted by Apex Court subject to various modifications." Affirms authoritative acceptance with modifications.
Sushma Suri: Reeta Dutta: Jit Ram Kasana: Guru Adhin: Deepak Kumar Agrawal: Mahesh Chander Verma. : Ranbir Singh VS Government National Capital Territory Of Delhi: Registrar, High Court Of Delhi: Government National Capital Territory Of Delhi: State Of U. P. : Registrar, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad: Registrar, High Court Of Delhi: Registrar, High Court Of Ra - 1998 8 Supreme 10: Labeled as "Important Point" defining "advocate" to include practicing law officers. Indicates recognized relevance.
Satish Kumar Sharma VS Bar Council Of H. P. - 2001 1 Supreme 56: Marked as "VERY" with holding that law officers are not entitled to enrolment unless State Bar Council frames specific rules. Indicates high relevance.
All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 5 Supreme 152: Provides recommendations to modify eligibility for LDCE and Civil Judge exams, using language like "it will be desirable to modify" and "shall amend." Suggests advisory authoritative guidance rather than strict binding precedent.
DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS KESHAV KAUSHIK - 2013 1 Supreme 355: States a clear holding on Article 233(2) focusing on "function of the law officers" rather than employment. Presented as settled rule without negative treatment indicators.
Vijay Kumar Mishra VS High Court of Judicature at Patna - 2016 8 Supreme 628: Articulates distinction between recruitment/selection and appointment under Article 233(2), applying purposive construction. No negative indicators.
Harbhajan Singh VS Press Council Of India - 2002 2 Supreme 368: Holds that Section 6(7) of Press Council Act does not disqualify for more than two terms. Clear statutory interpretation.
Tej Prakash Pathak VS Rajasthan High Court - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1001: Establishes that eligibility criteria cannot be altered post-commencement for fairness. Affirmative constitutional principle.
Dheeraj Mor VS Hon’ble High Court of Delhi - 2020 2 Supreme 499: Rules that judicial service members cannot claim advocate quota vacancies under Article 233. Definitive exclusionary holding.
Ashok Kumar Sharma VS Chander Shekhar - 1997 4 Supreme 320: Sets eligibility cutoff as the last date for applications, excluding later qualifications. Standard procedural rule.
Union Of India VS Hansoli Devi - 2002 6 Supreme 294: Holds that dismissal under Section 18 does not bar Section 28A application if conditions met. Remedial entitlement.
Mahesh Chandra Gupta VS Union of India - 2009 5 Supreme 572: Emphasizes insulating decision-making from misinformation. General good governance principle.
Vivek Narayan Sharma VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1: Upholds demonetisation constitutionality with multiple holdings on RBI Act, nexus, and statutory interpretation. Affirmative on public interest restrictions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.