Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sanyal and Aftab Alam JJ.
Dr.Amar Nath Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6582 of 1990 ; 6700 of 1990 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 01, 1990
DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - ARTICLE 233(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SELECTION PROCESS - RESERVATION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, ECONOMICALLY WEAKER SECTIONS AND WOMEN - VALIDITY OF ADVERTISEMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 233 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Two writ petitions were filed challenging the selection process for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judges under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners raised various issues, including the eligibility of Assistant Public Prosecutors, the evaluation of answer sheets, the clubbing of vacancies, the counting of experience as an Advocate, and the lack of reservation for backward classes, economically weaker sections, and women.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are eligible for consideration for appointment as Additional District Judges, as they are deemed to have practiced as Advocates for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of seven years of practice. The court also held that the evaluation of answer sheets by computer was valid and that there was no substance to the allegation that some answer sheets were not appraised. The court further held that the clubbing of vacancies from different years was permissible and that there was no requirement to allot a specific year to each candidate. The court also held that candidates who became eligible after 1985 could be considered for vacancies that arose before 1985. The court further held that the advertisements for the recruitment of Additional District Judges were not ultra vires Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as the High Court was not bound to implement the State Government's policy of reservation in the absence of any specific rules or regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are eligible for consideration for appointment as Additional District Judges. 2. Whether the evaluation of answer sheets by computer was valid. 3. Whether the clubbing of vacancies from different years was permissible. 4. Whether candidates who became eligible after 1985 could be considered for vacancies that arose before 1985. 5. Whether the advertisements for the recruitment of Additional District Judges were ultra vires Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are eligible for consideration for appointment as Additional District Judges, as they are deemed to have practiced as Advocates for the purpose of fulfilling the requirement of seven years of practice. This is because Rule 44 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, Chapter V of the State Bar Council Rule, and Section 24(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, make it clear that an Advocate appointed as an Assistant Public Prosecutor does not cease to practice as an Advocate. 2. The court held that the evaluation of answer sheets by computer was valid, as there was no evidence to suggest that any answer sheets were not appraised. The court also noted that the High Court had taken steps to ensure that all answer sheets were evaluated properly. 3. The court held that the clubbing of vacancies from different years was permissible, as there was no requirement to allot a specific year to each candidate. The court also noted that the High Court had taken steps to ensure that all candidates were treated fairly and that the selection process was transparent. 4. The court held that candidates who became eligible after 1985 could be considered for vacancies that arose before 1985, as there was no rule or regulation that prohibited this. The court also noted that the High Court had taken steps to ensure that all candidates were treated fairly and that the selection process was transparent. 5. The court held that the advertisements for the recruitment of Additional District Judges were not ultra vires Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as the High Court was not bound to implement the State Government's policy of reservation in the absence of any specific rules or regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the selection process for direct recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judges was valid and that the advertisements for the recruitment were not ultra vires the Constitution.
S.B.Sanyal, J.
1. Both these writ petitions are directed against the procedures of selection of direct recruits of Additional District and Sessions Judge, as envisaged under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution of India. Since the two petitions challenge the process of selection for oral interview, which is to commence from 3rd November 1990, they are disposed of at the stage of admission itself after hearing both the parties.
2. In C.W.J.C. No. 6582 of 1990 petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 claim to be the applicants for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge pursuant to an advertisment dated 8.2.1985 (Annexure-1), and petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are non-applicants for the aforesaid post. Petitioner No. 2, also claims to be a member of the backward class under Annexure-II. In C.W.J.C. No. 6700/90 the petitioner, who is an advocate of this Court and not an applicant for this post, assails the advertisement dated 8.2.1985 (Annexure-1) and the advertisement dated 20.9.1989 (Annexure-2) by way of Public interest litigation on the ground that there has been no reservation made in favour of backward classes, economically weaker classes and for women candidates, inasmuch as the Government has taken a decision on 10th November, 1978, in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India to reserve 8% for other backward classes, 12% for extremely backward classes, 3% for women candidates and 3% for economically weaker section of the society for appointment in State Services.
3. In C.W.J.C. No. 6582/90 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pressed the following six points only.
(I) Some Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Sec. 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not advocates and those who are enrolled as advocates cannot count their period of Government service towards ulfilling the requirement of seven years practice, but such, persons have also been called for interview.
Further, they are debarred from being considered in view of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, as they are in the service of the Union or of the State. It has been stated that more than 15 Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed under Sec. 25(1) Cr.P.C. have been called for interview having qualified in the written test, out of whom Sri Birendra Kumar Sharma, Sri Rajendra Pd. Mishra and Sri Jitendra Prasad Sinha were never enrolled as advocates in any Bar Council and/or under the Advocates Act.
(II) The examination of the answer books through the Computer has resulted in non-appraisal of many answer books of the candidates, who have not filled up the six squares at the bottom of the answer books, resulting in non-acceptance of the answer sheets by the Computer. There was no warning of this imperativeness, either on the question paper or in the answer book. The evaluation of answer-sheets, therefore, should have been done manually and not by Computer in order to prevent such gross injustice.
(III) In adopting the selection process the Court have violated the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.P. Verma V/s. State of Bihar 1989 PLJR 1031 for the reasons: (a) The court did not frame new Rules for selection nor it followed the old Rules.
(b) The respondents acted illegally in clubbing the vacancies of 1985 and 1989 and holding a composite test for all the vacancies.
(c) In issuing the interview letters the respondents ought to have maintained the ratio of 26 posts into 4 for vaeancies of 1985 and 6 into 4 for vacancies of the year 1989, In short, 104 candidates ought to have bean allowed to be interviewed from 1985 applicants and 24 candidates from 1989 applicants; whereas 129 candidates have been called for interview ignoring the year of vacancy. The clubbing of the vacancies, therefore, has caused grave injustice and inequality.
(IV) Those candidates who became only eligible in the year 1987, under no circusmtance can be considered for the vacan
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
