HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without Protest

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sandeep Sharma held: “Petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from assailing the Regulation in question and on this sole ground, petitions deserve to be rejected particularly when the petitioners belong to class of Judicial Officers who are supposed and expected to be well versed with consequences of participating in the selection process without any protest and filing the petitions only after failing in qualifying the written examination.”Background Facts:Two writ petitions sought directions to amend Clause 6(i) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Promotion Regulations, 2005, challenging the higher qualifying marks prescribed for in-service Civil Judges (Senior Division) seeking promotion to the posts District/Additional District Judge posts through a limited competitive exam.The petitioners contended that prescribing different criteria for recruitment through two different modes i.e, direct recruitment and limited competitive examination, was irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the Constitutional mandate of equality.The dual system was introduced following the Supreme Court's decision in All India Judges Association and others vs. Union of India, 2002, which directed that 75% of District Judge posts be filled by promotion (50% through merit-cum-seniority and 25% through a limited competitive exam) and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar.To implement this, the High Court framed the 'Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules,2004' and notified the 2005 Promotion Regulations to give effect to this framework. It specified that no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the written test unless they obtain a minimum of 60% marks in each individual paper and a minimum aggregate of 66% marks in all papers put together.Later, in 2009 the qualifying criteria for direct recruits were reduced to 50% marks in each individual paper and 55% marks in all papers together. Thereafter, the H.P. Judicial Officers Association filed a representation before the High Court to make the criteria identical for both direct recruits and competitive examination candidates, but the criteria were not amended. Findings: The Court found that both petitioners were fully aware of the eligibility criteria before applying for the examination and yet participated in the selection process without raising any objection.It was noted that one of the petitioners, after being declared unqualified, submitted a representation not for making the criteria at par with direct recruits, but for the grant of 1% more marks.The Court held that since both the petitioners knowingly participated in the selection process under the notified rules, they were estopped by their conduct from challenging the criteria, after being declared unsuccessful. The Court emphasised that, being judicial officer,s the petitioners were expected to be well versed with the consequences of participating in the selection process.In Dr. Kavita Kamboj V/s High Court of Punjab & Haryana, 2024, the Supreme Court held that “plea of unreasonableness, irrationality, arbitrariness, discrimination, violation of Constitutional mandate, for providing different bench marks to two categories i.e. direct recruits and in-service candidates through limited competitive examination, is not sustainable.”Thus, the High Court dismissed both the writ petitions and upheld the eligibility criteria. Case Name: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.Case No.: CWP No. 1337 of 2010 & 9396 of 2013Date of Decision: 07.07.2025CWP No. 1337 of 2010For 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 2013For 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.Click Here To Read/Download Order

HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without Protest

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags