Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3633
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
A. B. Chaudhari, Inderjit Singh, JJ.
Anmol Singh Nayar - Appellant
Versus
Punjab And Haryana High Court - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 892 of 2017
Decided On : 26-02-2018
Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondents
The eligibility of a person in judicial service is required to be seen at the time of appointment for such post and not prior to it, based on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Corrigendum - Haryana Superior Judicial Service - Rules 5, 6(1)(c), 11 - The court discussed the eligibility of in-service candidates in the judiciary for the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, referencing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra. The court highlighted the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and its application to the eligibility of candidates, emphasizing that the eligibility of a person in judicial service is required to be seen at the time of appointment for such post and not prior to it. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Rules were violated, citing the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a Corrigendum and communication allowing in-service candidates in the judiciary to participate in the selection process for the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. The petitioner's seniority would be affected if any of the in-service candidates were selected and appointed to the posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, rejecting the preliminary objection raised by respondent No.1 about the petitioner's locus standi. The court discussed the eligibility of in-service candidates in the judiciary for the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, referencing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra. The court highlighted the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India and its application to the eligibility of candidates, emphasizing that the eligibility of a person in judicial service is required to be seen at the time of appointment for such post and not prior to it. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Rules were violated, citing the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of in-service candidates in the judiciary for the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India, and the application of the Rules 5, 6(1)(c), and 11 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the eligibility of a person in judicial service is required to be seen at the time of appointment for such post and not prior to it, based on the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the Rules were violated, citing the ratio decidendi laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Mishra.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.
JUDGMENT
A.B. Chaudhari, J. - By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged Corrigendum dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No.1 and communication dated 24.12.2016 (Annexure P-4), by which respondents No.3 to 14, in-service candidates in the judiciary, Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch), were allowed to appear provisionally in the written examination of Haryana Super Judicial Service and were allowed to participate in the selection process of direct recruitment to the said service meant for practising Advocates.
Facts :
2. The petitioner is serving as Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhiwani. He was appointed on 25.01.2007 and was posted initially to work at Panchkula where he joined on 27.01.2007. He completed his probation period and was confirmed with effect from 08.03.2011. On 16.07.2017, respondent No.1 issued a Notification inviting applications for selection to 10 posts of Haryana Superior Judicial Service by way of direct recruitment i.e. 25%, from amongst the eligible Advocates through competitive examination under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short 'the Rules'). The eligibility was provided by clause 2(b) in the Notification that the candidate should have been duly enrolled as an Advocate and must have been practising for a period not less than 7 years as on the last date of submission of applications. Respondents No.3 to 14 are in judicial service who had applied for direct recruitment pursuant to the said Notification/advertisement dated 16.07.2015. They were not members of the Bar on the last date of submission of applications. Their initial appointments in the judiciary range from the years 2006 to 2013. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued Corrigendum dated 17.08.2016 under which respondents No.3 to 14 were considered eligible for direct recruitment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7358 of 2016 titled 'Vijay Kumar Mishra and another v. High Court of Judicature at Patna and others', decided on 09.08.2016. The facts in the said judgment were entirely different as the candidates in the said judgment were the members of the Bar at the time of submission of applications and at the time of participating in the written test and only thereafter they had joined the judicial service. Private respondents No.3 to 14 were allowed to appear in the written test that was held from 10.02.2017 to 12.02.2017. None of them were members of the Bar as on the last date of submission of applications; namely, 31.08.2015. Respondents No.3 to 14 were, therefore, ineligible to even apply for the said post and consequently could not have been considered nor could be allowed to participate in the process of selection. Respondents No.3 to 14, in the order of seniority, are junior to the petitioner and in case they are selected and appointed in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, they will be obviously placed above the petitioner in the seniority which would affect him adversely. The petitioner has, thus, put to challenge Corrigendum dated 17.08.2016, as aforesaid.
3. This Court had issued notice of motion of on 06.02.2017 by making a speaking order and Registrar (Recruitment) was directed to produce entire relevant record. On 07.02.2017, this Court passed an interim order allowing respondents No.3 to 14 to appear provisionally in the written examination that was scheduled to be held from 10.02.2017 to 12.02.2017 subject to the decision of the present writ petition and that the result thereof shall be kept in a sealed cover.
4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement which was taken on record on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, on 26.07.2017, Registrar (Recruitment) produced an envelop containing the result of respondents No.3 to 14. This Court found that none was qualified in the main examination except respondents No.8 and 13 who had cleared the same. Consequently
