Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
ANITA SUMANTH, G. ARUL MURUGAN
High Court of Judicature at Madras, Rep. by its Registrar General, High Court, Madras – Appellant
Versus
K. Subramanian – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
The Registry of this Court is aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned Judge in order dated 30.10.2019. The challenge in that writ petition was to Notification dated 17.09.2019 and inter-alia, the writ petitioners had sought a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioners, on the basis of various grounds agitated by them.
2. In the course of the hearing of that writ petition, one of the points raised was that the procedure followed by the respondents amounted to unfair labour practices and thus as a consequence, the writ petition ought to have been listed before the Hon'ble Judge holding the 'Labour' portfolio.
3. At paragraphs 11 and 12, the learned Judge has discussed the issue thus:-
Registry officials cannot decide case listings independently, ensuring transparency and preventing unfair practices; authority lies with the Chief Justice for case postings.
Lawyers are officers of Court; they are part of judiciary.
The court established that strict adherence to the roster system for case management is essential to ensure judicial efficiency and prevent confusion in the handling of related cases.
The court established that strict adherence to the roster system for case listing is essential to maintain judicial order and efficiency, and any failure to comply may result in disciplinary action a....
The authority of the Chief Justice to issue administrative directives is absolute and such directives should align with established rules without requiring concurrence from the Full Court.
Judicial orders must adhere to roster guidelines, and deviations without proper direction may result in disciplinary action.
The court established that a promotion panel based on seniority-cum-merit remains valid until fully utilized, contrasting it with merit-cum-seniority processes.
(1) Appointment as Judges – Scope of judicial review – Absence of consultation amongst members of Collegium would be within limited purview of judicial review – Suitability falls beyond scope of judi....
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
Listen Article