Bombay High Court Seeks 'Blueprint' From Administration Over Recruitment Of 2863 Judicial Officers Against Newly Sanctioned Posts

The Bombay High Court has sought from its Administration a 'blue print' for recruitment of nearly 2800 judicial officers against the newly sanctioned posts by the Maharashtra Government for the State's lower judiciary. A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Sarang Kotwal emphasised that the State as well as the High Court on the Administrative side will have to act 'expeditiously' to aim its goal of 'speedy justice' for the citizens. "We are cautious that the appointment process for Judicial Officers cannot be made time bound, we expect expediency on part of the High Court as well as the Law and Judiciary Department as, if the State has to target the aim of 'speedy justice' it must supplement it with the appointment procedure which shall be effectively implemented by the High Court as well as the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) as it is the recruiting agency for the feeder cadre," the judges observed in the order passed on January 28. The judges were hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Vaijanath Vaze, who highlighted the pending vacancies etc in the State Judiciary and sought directions for filling up the vacant posts. On a previous hearing, Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade representing the State, informed the Court about the February 6, 2024 Government Resolution (GR) by which the State sanctioned a total of 2863 posts for Judicial Officers who would be assisted by a total of 1164 Court Staff members. The GR also notified creation of a total of 5,803 posts for contractual labours. When the PIL came up for hearing on January 28, petitioner Vaze, who appears as a 'party-in-person' highlighted about the pending vacant posts and urged the court that the authorities concerned be asked to fill up the same expeditiously. The bench, however, opined that though the posts are created, for filling up the posts, the procedure as prescribed in the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 will have to be strictly adhered to, and pointed out that it is a time consuming process."We are cautious that the appointments/promotions are to be effected based on judging the suitability of the candidate and this process definitely consumes time," the judges said. However, the bench, sought a 'blue print' from the High Court spelling out as to how it proposes to proceed on the recruitment against the newly sanctioned posts for Judicial Officers. "We deem it appropriate to direct the High Court to place before us a blue print of the steps which it intend to follow in filling-up the sanctioned posts including the posts which are vacant and this include the post of Civil Judge Junior Division, Civil Judge Senior Division/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the Judges of the Small Causes and Metropolitan Magistrate along with the District Judges/Additional District Judges and Chief Judge and Additional Chief Judge of the Small Causes," the judges ordered. The bench made it clear that it expects the High Court to place before it, a blue print of the procedure that it intend to implement for the year 2026 and the affidavit to be clearly spell out - (i) The number of total posts sanctioned by the State in different cadres (ii) The vacancies as on January 1, 2026 (iii) The time lines within which the advertisements shall be issued including the number of posts for which the advertisements are to be issued, with the phases in which the recruitment process shall be initiated.With these orders, the bench has adjourned the hearing till February 23.Appearance:Vaijanath Vaze appeared as a Party-in-Person.Additional Government Pleader Priyabhushan Kakade assisted by Assistant Government Pleaders Manish Pable and VG Badgujar represented the State. Advocate SR Nargolkar represented the High Court.Advocates Raufa Shaikh and Yuvraj Narvankar appeared for another Petitioner - Maharashtra State Judges Association.Case Title: Vaijanath Pandurang Vaze vs The Registrar General, High Court of Bombay (Public Interest Litigation 36 of 2022)Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Seeks 'Blueprint' From Administration Over Recruitment Of 2863 Judicial Officers Against Newly Sanctioned Posts

Narsi Benwal

Tags