State Seeking Opinion From UOI On District Judges Appointment A 'Serious Assault' On Independence Of HC's Functioning: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court on Wednesday, directed Haryana to accept the recommendations of the High Court made on appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges and give necessary effect to it "within two weeks."It also opined that the State government's move to seek a legal opinion from the Union Government in the matter "would amount to a serious assault on the independence of the functioning of the High Court."A division bench of Justice G.S Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerjee opined that, "for the State now to hold out that the it is not for this Court that what are the qualities the judicial officer should possess for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge and on account of representation filed by a person not even affected by the said issue, it would seek opinion from a third party namely the Union of India would amount to a serious assault on the independence of the functioning of the High Court which has been ordained with the selection process, which was sought to be done from the pool of three time the number of candidates called."These observations were made while hearing the plea filed by the Haryana Civil judges (senior division) and CJMs who sought appointment to the district judiciary challenging the State's decision rejecting the High Court's recommendations for the promotion of 13 judicial officers. The judicial officers who were not recommended for promotion by the high court also filed a petition challenging the recommendations.In an affidavit, Haryana Chief Secretary Sanjeev Kaushal submitted that they took legal opinion from the Union Law Ministry on the matter which said that the Haryana government would not be bound to accept the High Court's recommendations if the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules were amended unilaterally by the HC.Kaushal said they had received an Advocate's letter namely Prem Pal, alleging that the High Court modified the eligibility criteria for appointments, without involving the State government. It was alleged that the High Court prescribed cut-off marks in viva voce as 50%, without consulting the State or even giving any public notice of the same.The Union Law Ministry said that consultation with the State government for amending the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules is "mandatory" and in case of alleged non-consultation, the Haryana Government may even opt for a judicial review.The High Court rejected the above submissions and referred to Chandramouleshwar Prasad v Patna High Court & Ors. [(1970) 2 SCR 666] opined, "the State Government was not within its right to take a different decision and overrule the recommendation of this Court on the basis of a meddlesome interloper namely Prem Pal, Advocate who was in no way connected remotely with the selection process."Reliance was placed upon KH Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and others, [(2006) 6 SCC 395] where in reference was made as such to the power of the High Court to prescribe a minimum pass marks for the subordinate judiciary and it was held that the High Court was best judge in the matter and vested with the entire administration for the subordinate judiciary under Articles 233 to 235 for high traditions and standards to be maintained.Selection Process Was De-Railed By State On Account Of Representation Filed By Third Private Party ElementThe bench noted that the selection process was de-railed after the representation was filed by a third party, a District Court lawyer "who was pushing a certain set of candidates in his objection raised to the State and who had no locus-standi in the matter." The element of a third private party having been introduced by the State has done extreme violence to the selection process and de-railed the same and the justice delivery system in Haryana has been set back and badly impacted and continues to suffer on account of the fact that the State Government showed its proactivity in a case where it was not required, said the Court.It further added that rather than permitting the officers who had been duly recommended, it has apparently sought to push the case of the non-meritorious candidates in spite of the fact that the rule provides otherwise.Reliance was also placed on State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand HCS and others, [(1976) 2 SCC 977], wherein four Judges Bench held that if the recommendation of the High Court was not to be binding on the State, the consequences would be unfortunate while dismissing the appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court which had quashed the order retiring the officer from service against the recommendations of this Court.Seeking Legal Opinion From Union Government On Matter Was UnjustifiedThe Court opined that seeking legal opinion "from the Union of India on the representation of Prem Pal (advocate who filed representation to challenge HC's recommendation) and having fallen back upon the same while not accepting the recommendations of the...

State Seeking Opinion From UOI On District Judges Appointment A 'Serious Assault' On Independence Of HC's Functioning: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

State Seeking Opinion From UOI On District Judges Appointment A 'Serious Assault' On Independence Of HC's Functioning: P&H High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers