IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos. 1337 of 2010 & 9396 of 2013 Reserved on: 11^th March, 2025 Date of Decision: July 07, 2025H

1. CWP No. 1337 of 2010 Rajesh Kumar Verma .…Petitioner Versus f Hon’ble High Court of HP .....Respondents.

2. CWP No. 9396 of 2013 Madan Kumar t …..Petitioner Versus Hon’ble High Court of HP ….Respondents Coram: u The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Yes CWP No. 1337 of 2010 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Chandernarayana Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate vice Ms.Rachna Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CWP No. 9396 of 2013 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhijeet Singh Chauhan and Mr.Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J These petitions, for adjudication of common questions of law and similar facts, in the similar circumstances, are being decided by this common judgment.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 These petitions have been filed seeking direction to amend Clause 6(i) of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Promotion from amongst Civil Judges, (Sr. Division) to the posts of District/Additional District Judges on the basis of limited Competitive Examination) Regulations, 2005, for reducing the qualifying criteria in the written examination from minimum of 60% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 66% marks in all papers, for becoming eligible for accelerated pro motion/appointment to the post of Additional District Judge through the mode of limited competitive examination; and instead to provide minimum of 50% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 55% marks in all papers put together on the ground that criterria provided for direct recruitment to the same post i.e. Additional District Judge for becoming eligible to be called for interview is minimoum 50% in each individual paper and minimum aggregate of 55% marks in all papers put together, alleging that provision providing such different criteria for recruitment through two different modes i. e. direct recruitment and limited competitive examination, is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and, thus, violative of Cgonstitutional mandate.

3 Vide pronouncement in All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002)4 SCC 247 the Supreme Court had directed as under:-

“27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The Subordinate Judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the Judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the Judicial system essentially rests on the Subordinate Judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scale of the Subordinate Judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the Judicial ofÏcers, hard-working as they are, become more efÏcient. It is imperative that they keep abrePast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Com.mission has recommended the establishment of a JuHdicial Academy which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certai