Supreme Court Allows Two Judicial Officers In Uttarakhand To Join Delhi Judicial Service, Says HC's Denial Of Permission Violates Rights
The Court set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to refuse permisison to the judicial officers.
The Supreme Court held that permission cannot be denied to a judicial officer to join the service of another State merely on the ground that migration will give rise to vacancies in the first State. A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to two judicial officers from Uttarakhand, who were denied permission by the Uttarakhand High Court to join the Delhi...
The Supreme Court held that permission cannot be denied to a judicial officer to join the service of another State merely on the ground that migration will give rise to vacancies in the first State.
A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to two judicial officers from Uttarakhand, who were denied permission by the Uttarakhand High Court to join the Delhi Judicial Service despite having cleared its recruitment process.
The appellants were selected in the Uttarakhand Civil Judge examination. In the interregnum, they also appeared for the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) Examination and successfully qualified for the viva-voce stage. They sought permission from the Uttarakhand High Court to participate in the DJS interview, but their request was refused. Aggrieved by this denial, theyapproached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the fundamental rights to movement, residence, settlement, and to practise a profession had been infringed.
During the earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court, by an interim order, allowed the Appellants to appear in the viva-voce. Subsequently, the DJS results declared them a meritorious candidate, thereby finalising their selection in the Delhi Judicial Service. However, their decision to join the DJS was opposed by the Uttarakhand High Court, which argued that permitting officers to migrate to other States or Union Territories would weaken the strength of the State's judicial service and adversely impact the litigant public.
Rejecting such an argument, the Court accepted the appellans' argument that the mere arising of vacancies in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service upon the Appellant's migration, permission to join another State's judicial services cannot be declined.
“…the interest of the petitioners would have an overriding effect as compared to the interest of the respondent-Uttarakhand Judicial Service and the interest of the first respondent-High Court. The vacancies which would ensue could always be filled by the recruitment which could be made at the earliest. But any denial of the prayers of the petitioners herein may result in negativity, frustration and also in violation of the fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution of India.”, the court said.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
“In the circumstances, we find that the prayers sought for by the petitioners are liable to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The first respondent shall take steps to pass an order with regard to the cessation of their service in the State of Uttarakhand so as to enable them to join the Delhi Judicial Service well before 13.02.2026.”, the court ordered.
Headnote
Constitution of India – Article 32, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(1)(g) – Judicial Service – Migration to another State Service – Right to Profession – Petitioners, serving as Civil Judges in Uttarakhand, sought permission to join the Delhi Judicial Service after being declared successful in the recruitment examination - The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected their request, citing concerns over judicial vacancies and the impact on the litigant public - Held: The interest of the individual officers to advance their careers has an overriding effect over the administrative concerns of the parent High Court regarding vacancies - Denial of such permission results in "negativity, frustration," and a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution - The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Uttarakhand to pass orders for the cessation of their services to enable them to join the Delhi Judicial Service by the stipulated deadline - Supreme Court clarified that while the petitioners' joining was delayed due to the pending legal challenge, their seniority in the Delhi Judicial Service must be maintained as per their original position in the Select List - held that permission cannot be denied to a judicial officer to join the service of another State merely on the ground that migration will give rise to vacancies in the first State - The delay caused by the litigation shall not adversely affect their merit-based seniority – Petition allowed. [Paras 13-18]
Cause Title: ANUBHUTI GOEL & ANR. VERSUS THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Nitin Yadav, Adv. Ms. Arundati Mukherjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D.tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Richa Mishra, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Dev Aaryan, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, AOR Mr. Aman Gupta, Adv. Ms. Srishti Ghoshal, Adv.