Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 909
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Shri K.S. Jhaveri, Shri K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Ranjan Kumar Pradhan - Appellant
Versus
High Court Of Judicature Of Orissa - Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 18368, 18378, 18384, 18339, 18111, 18972, 17522, 18989, 19515, 19751, 2340, 18337, 19101 and 19110 of 2018
Decided On : 10-12-2018
Mr. V. Narasingh, R.L. Pradhan, J. Samanta Ray & S.G. Das,.Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18368 of 2018]; Mr. V. Narasingh, R.L. Pradhan, J. Samanta Ray & S.G. Das,.Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18378 of 2018]; Mr. V. Narasingh, R.L. Pradhan, J. Samanta Ray & S.G. Das. Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18384 of 2018]; M/s. A Pattnaik, T.K. Pattnaik, A. Pattnaik, S. Pattnaik, B.S. Rayaguru, S. Mohapatra, R. Pati, P.P. Mulin, S.P. Moharana, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18339 of 2018]; M/s. Gautam Mukherjee P. Mukherjee, A.C. Panda, S.D. Ray, S. Sahoo & S. Panda, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18111 of 2018]; M/s. Brahma Nanda Tripathy & D. Chatterjee, Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18972 of 2018]; Sri S.K. Nayak, Sr. Adv. M/s Tahali Charan Mohanty, Sr. Adv. J. Mohanty, R.P. Bhagat, M.M. Mohanty, & C.R. Dhal, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.17522 of 2018]; M/s. Tahali Charan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate. B.K. Tripathy, K. Kar, R.P. Bhagat & G.P. Mohanty, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18989 of 2018]; M/s. Umakanta Sahoo, S.K. Mohanty & S. Das, Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.19515 of 2018]; M/s. Gopal Sinha, P.P.Behera K. Khuntia & A.Ku.Parida, Advocate, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.19751 of 2018]; M/s. P.R. Chhatoi, A.B. Mallick & G.S. Muduli, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.2340 of 2018]; M/s. A. Pattnaik, B.S. Rayguru & B. Mohanty, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.18337 of 2018]; M/s. Choudhury Aswini Kumar Das H.B. Dash, R. Das Nayak & B.K. Sethy, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.19101 of 2018]; M/s. B.S. Rayguru, A. Pattnaik, B.K. Mishr & A.U. Senapati, Advocates, for the Appellants [In W.P.(C) No.19110 of 2018]; Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, Govt. Advocate Mr. P.K. Muduli, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for Opposite Parties
Cases Referred
D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik, (2013) 5 SCC 277
Dheeraj Mor Vs. Hon''ble High Court of Delhi, (2018) 4 SCC 619
Malik Mazhar Sultan 3 Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703
Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. High Court of judicature at Patna, (2016) 9 SCC 313
The main legal point established in the judgment is that judicial officers must follow the Service Rules meant for Judicial Officers and cannot claim the benefit meant for other categories of candidates for direct recruitment.
Headnote:
Recruitment Process - District Judge Examination - Article 233(2) - Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Koushik (2013) 5 SCC 277, Dheeraj Mor vs. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (2018) 4 SCC 619, Vijay Kumar Mishra and another vs. High Court of judicature at Patna and others (2016) 9 SCC 313, Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and others (2008) 17 SCC 703 - The court discussed the eligibility of judicial officers with 7 years of practice at the Bar for direct recruitment as District Judges, interpreting Article 233(2) and relevant case laws. The court considered the interpretation of 'has been for not less than seven years an advocate' and the impact of interim orders and special circumstances on the recruitment process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the recruitment process for the District Judge Examination for the year 2018, arguing that judicial officers with 7 years of practice at the Bar were debarred from participating in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that judicial officers must follow the Service Rules meant for Judicial Officers and cannot claim the benefit meant for other categories of candidates for direct recruitment. The court also emphasized the impact of interim orders and special circumstances on the recruitment process.
Issues: The main issue was whether judicial officers with 7 years of practice at the Bar could be debarred from participating in the selection process for direct recruitment as District Judges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 233(2) and relevant case laws, emphasizing the need to follow the Service Rules meant for Judicial Officers and the impact of interim orders and special circumstances on the recruitment process.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court held that it was not appropriate to allow anybody to appear in the examination, considering the eligibility criteria and special circumstances.
ORDER
K.S. Jhaveri, C.J. - By all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the recruitment process adopted by the Orissa High Court in the District Judge Examination for the year 2018.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are either judicial officers or advocates and they have challenged the procedure adopted by the this Court.
3. Mr. Narasingh, learned counsel for the petitioners, in first three cases, has submitted that even if the petitioners have seven years of practice at the Bar, they are debarred from participating the selection process of the direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge on the ground that they are serving as judicial officers and they are not practicing as advocate on the date of submission of their applications. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly submitted as under:
"A. The issue which falls for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the present writ application, is whether the petitioner-applicants who have 7 years of practice at bar can be debarred from participating in the selection process for "direct recruitment in the cadre of District Judge" on the ground they serving as judicial officers and are not in practice as advocates on the date of submission of the application.
B. The opp.parties have in their counter sought/prayed for dismissal of the writ application primarily on two grounds:
1. In view of the law laid down in Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Koushik in (2013) 5 SCC 277 , the petitioners are not eligible to participate in the selection process as they were not continuing as an advocate on the date of application. (Para-5, 6, 7 and 11 of the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.19110/2018 filed by the opposite party No.1)
2. Full Court of this Hon'ble Court on 30.10.2018 has been pleased to reject the candidatures of the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates on the ground that "they were not in practice as an advocate on the date of submission of the application". (Para-5 of the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.19110/2018 filed by the Opp.Party No.1)
C. It is pertinent to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the issue(s) involved in the present writ application and the judgment relied upon by the opp.party in Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Koushik in (2013) 5 SCC 277 has been referred to larger bench in (2018) 4 SCC 619 (Dheeraj Mor vs. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi) and pending adjudication before the Apex Court.
The Apex Court, during pendency of such proceeding, has permitted similarly situated candidates not only to participate in the selection process for appointment but also directed the concerned Opp.Parties to proceed with the appointment in case they are found eligible, post selection, subject to the decision of the Constitution Bench."
In support of his submission, Mr. Narasingh, learned counsel for the respective petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi, reported in (2018) 4 SCC 619 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-2, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 has held as under:
"2. The petitioners have raised mainly two contentions
- (i) in case a candidate has completed seven years of practice as an advocate, he/she shall be an eligible candidate despite the fact that on the date of the application/appointment, he/she is in the service of Union or State; (ii) the members who are in judicial service as Civil Judge, Junior Division or Senior Division, in case they have completed seven years as Judicial Officers or seven years as Judicial Officer-cum-Advocate, they should be treated as eligible candidates.
xx xx xx
8. In Deepak Aggarwal vs. Keshav Kaushik and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 277 three-judge Bench of this Court held that the appellants did not cease to be advocates while working as Assistant District Attorney/Public Prosecuto
