- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Restriction On Deputing Judicial...
Restriction On Deputing Judicial Officers To Administrative Posts In Public Interest, Prevents Case Backlog: Registrar To Kerala High Court
Tellmy Jolly
6 Jan 2024 5:55 AM GMT
Responding to the plea moved by Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) Advocates' Association seeking appointment of judicial officers as Registrar in the Tribunal, the Registrar General of Kerala High Court and the Registrar (District Judiciary) said the decision to restrict deputation of judicial officers in administrative posts was taken by a Full Bench of the High Court in public...
Responding to the plea moved by Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) Advocates' Association seeking appointment of judicial officers as Registrar in the Tribunal, the Registrar General of Kerala High Court and the Registrar (District Judiciary) said the decision to restrict deputation of judicial officers in administrative posts was taken by a Full Bench of the High Court in public interest.
Such a policy decision was taken to prevent the backlog of cases in the district judiciary, they said, adding that judicial officers should be utilized to perform judicial functions except when there is unavoidable administrative exigency.
Further, the Registrar submitted that policy decisions on the deputation of judicial officers were a prerogative of the High Court. It was submitted that the decision to restrict the deputation of judicial officers to administrative posts was taken by the Full Bench of the High Court and cannot be challenged.
It was submitted that the plea moved by the KAT in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation was not maintainable since it pertains to service matters relating to the suitability of appointment of judicial officers in administrative posts. Relying upon Apex Court decisions in Ashok Kumar Pandey v State of West Bengal (2004), Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v State of Maharashtra (2005), Neetu v State of Punjab (2007) and Hari Bansh Lal v Sahodar Prasad Mahto (2010), it was averred that public interest litigations were not maintainable in service matters.
Additionally, it was also submitted that deputation of judicial officers to non-judicial posts was only one of the methods of appointment and not the only method of appointment of Registrar or Deputy Registrar. Additionally, it was also averred that there were several judicial and quasi-judicial posts held by persons who were not judicial officers such as posts of District Collectors, Tahsildars, Village Officers etc.
It was also submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable and KAT has no locus standi in this matter as they were not aggrieved in any way. Also, they stated that the writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
The matter will be heard by a single bench of Justice Basant Balaji next week.
Counsel for the petitioners: Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George, A L Navaneeth Krishnan
Counsel for the respondents: Advocates N Manoj Kumar, B G Harindranath, Amith Krishnan H
Case title: The Kerala Administrative Tribunal Advocates' Association v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 43000/2023
