Nitish breaches the constitution to woo voters
Media has in incessantly been heaping accolades on Nitish kumar with so much of munificence that he has emerged as the strongest contender for the title “the most popular leader” in a contest organized by a daily. But he has lately committed a faux pas that has gone unnoticed by the media- a fux pas which is imbued with implication of serious constitutional impropriety which is uncharacteristic of Nitish Kumar govt.
With barely a year left Nitish Kumar felt the call of exigency and putting himself in an election mode threw to winds the constitutional provisions by providing for 49.5% reservation in all the judicial services including the Higher Judicial Services to which appointment is made from the bar direct to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). The said decision was taken on 25 June 2009 which was part of a host of decisions like creation of a new like Mahadalit with the sole intent to propitiate the voters.
The crucial decision providing for 49.5% reservation in all the judicial services including the Higher Judicial Services was taken without making due consultation with the Patna High Court. The constitutional provisions in this regard run as thus :
Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution of India deals with subordinate courts. Clause (1) of Article 233 says that “appointments of persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.” Article 234 says that appointments of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Article 235 vests control over the subordinate courts in the High Court. Article 236 is an interpretation clause. It defines the expressions “district judge” and “judicial service” respectively. It is sufficient to notice the definition of “district judge”. It includes “judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge”.
By not making consultation with the Hon’ble Patna Court before rushing in with its reservation policy of 49.5 % reservation in all judicial services of Bihar, the Nitish govt has paraded, beyond cavil, its total disregard for the Independence of Judiciary as enshrined in the constitution.
The fallout of such a fallacious decision has the effect of having its bearing on the citizenry in more than one way. On the one hand the aspirants cannot relish the idea of getting anointed as “judge” in the near future while on the other hand the vacancies in the lower judiciary in Bihar upto the level of District Judge (Entry level) is not going to be filled thereby causing bottleneck in the justice delivery system in Bihar.The whole nation is seized with the idea that justice in India is elusive because of insufficiency of the judicial officers vis-a-vis the load in the courts.
The CJIs (Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India)have harped on this every now and then though with utter Judicial Service helpness as the decision to take remedial measures i.e making appointments whether at the Union level or the state level stands vested in the executive.
In Bihar the process of appointment of judges both in the lower judiciary or in the higher judiciary has been enmeshed in the quagmire of legal controversy because of the Nitish govt’s hauteur to rush in with the said reservation policy without complying with the constitutional mandate of the prior consultation with the High Court.
The result is that the vires of the said policy has been challenged before the Patna High Court. Bihar Public Service Commission The Patna High Court has restrained, vide the order passed on 22nd December 2009, the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) from publishing the results of the 27th Judicial Service Competition Preliminary Test (PT).
The court said that the Commission can conduct the examination according to preset program (December 30) but only after getting permission from the court it can publish the result.
A division bench of Chief Justice Deepak Misra and Justice Shivkirti Singh delivered the judgment after hearing on a petition filed by Dayanand Singh. The applicant through his lawyer Chakrapani challenged the Bihar government’s decision to extend the benefits of reservation in the judicial services to Other Backward Castes (OBCs).
In June this year, the Nitish Kumar government had extended reservation benefits to the backward castes in state judicial services conducted by the BPSC. As per the state government’s decision there will be 49.5% (BC- 27%, SC/ST – 22.5%) reservation both in lower and higher judiciary services. The petitioner argued that a similar attempt was turned down by the Supreme Court which asked the then state government to prepare a detailed guideline and submit the same to the Patna High Court which too rejected the government’s proposals.
The matter will come up for final hearing on January 19. The court has also directed the state government to file counter-affidavit before January 15.
It is crystal clear that the said appointment to the judicial service in Bihar stands stalled because of the brazen decision of Nitish govt in not respecting the tenets of independence of judiciary which has been sought to be established by the makers of our constitution.
One is further appalled at the utter delay in granting formal approval to the appointment to 12 posts of District Judge (Entry Level) for which the Hon’ble Patna High Court held written exam on 5th July 2009 and conducted viva voce on 29th August 2009 and declared final list vide its notification dated 5th September 2009. Thus four months have already passed since the selection process attained finality at the end of the Hon’ble Patna High Court and the final list was sent to the state govt for its formal approval in terms of article 233 of the constitution. Nitish govt has steered clear of the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No 1867 of 2006 in the matter of Malik Mazahar Sultan and ors Vs UP Public Service Commission and others which run as thus”
“The appointment letters shall be issued by the State Government within one month of receipt of the recommendations from the respective High Court/State Public service Commission.”
The Hon’ble High Courts of Bihar , UP , Chhatisgarh and so on had initiated the recruitment process for appointment to the level of “District Judge (Entry level)“ in terms of the directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No 1867 of 2006 in the matter of Malik Mazahar Sultan and ors Vs UP Public Service Commission and others. The directives contained in the said order dated 4th January 2007 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were to be followed by all the respondents which included all the state govts along with the Hon’ble High Courts pertaining to the states or UTs. The Bihar govt apparently appears to be oblivious of its accountability before the apex court in matter of the inordinate delay in the appointment of judicial officers.
Thus from the instances given it is evident that the Nitish govt either acts beyond its constitutional reach and or maintains passivity where prompt action has been desired by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 4th January 2007.
Supreme Court order dated 4th January 2007
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2006
MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANR. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T., clarification of
court's order dated 03/04/2006 and office report)
With Civil Appeal No.1868 of 2006
(With office report)
Civil Appeal No.1869 of 2006
(With office report)
Civil Appeal No.1870 of 2006
(With office report)
Civil Appeal No.1871 of 2006
(With office report)
Civil Appeal No.1872 of 2006
(With office report)
[For Final Directions]
Date: 04/01/2007 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER
For Appellant(s)
In CA 1867/2006: Mr. Ejaz Maqbool,Adv.
Mr. Vikash Singh,Adv.
Ms. Taruna Singh,Adv.
Mr. Abhijeet Sinha,Adv.
In CA 1872/2006: Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi,Adv.
In CA 1868-71/2006: Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.
Mr. Merusagar Samantaray,Adv.
Mr. M.K. Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra,Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary
Mr. Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.
For Allahabad High Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava,Adv.
Court: Mr. Shaiwal Srivastava,Adv
Mr. K.K. Mohan,Adv.
For M.P. High Court: Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.
Mr. Merusagar Samantaray,Adv.
For Uttar Pradesh: Dr. R.G. Padia,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Misra,Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar,Adv.
For High Court of Mr. Janaranjan Das,Adv.
Orissa: Mr. Swetaketu Mishra,Adv.
For Bombay High Court: Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee,Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Choudhary,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Visen,Adv.
For Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
Ms. Pinky Behera,Adv.
For Tripura: Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas,Adv.
Mr. Nishakant Pandey,Adv.
For Bihar: Mr. Gopal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Nishakant Pandey,Adv.
For West Bengal: Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Neelam Sharma,Adv.
For Himachal Pradesh: Mr. J.S. Attri,AAG.
Mr. Vivek Singh,Adv.
For Arunachal Pradesh: Mr. Anil Shrivastav,Adv.
Ms. Smita Shankar,Adv.
For Assam: Mr. Riku Sarma,Adv.
for M/s. Corporate Law Group,Advs.
For Gauhati High Court: Mr. Vijay Hansaria,Sr.Adv.
Mr. P.I. Jose,Adv.
Mr. Anupam Mishra,Adv.
Ms. Sneha Kalita,Adv.
Ms. Deepti,Adv.
For Tamil Nadu and Mr. V.G. Pragasam,Adv.
Pondicherry: Mr. S. Vallinayagam,Adv.
For Mizoram: Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan,Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.
For Goa: Ms. A. Subhashini,Adv.
For Manipur: Mr. Kh. Nobin Singh,Adv.
Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei,Adv.
Mr. David Rao,Adv.
Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,Ad
For Jammu & Kashmir: Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak,AG
Mr. Anis Suhrawardy,Adv.
For Chhattisgarh: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,Adv.
Ms. Suparna Srivastava,Ad.
Ms. Pooja Matlani,Adv.
For Rajasthan High Mr. Sunil K. Jain,Adv.
Court: Mr. S. Borthakur,Adv.
For Punjab: Ms. Avneet Toor,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Jain,Adv.
for Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha,Adv.
For Rajasthan: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,AAG.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Sood,Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Shikha Tandon,Adv.
Mr. J.K. Bhatia,Adv.
Mr. R.S. Jena,Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Panda,Adv.
For Sikkim and Mr. A. Mariarputham,Adv.
Delhi High Court: Ms. Aruna Mathur,Adv.
for Arputham, Aruna & Co.,Advs.
For Meghalaya: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.
Mr. S.C. Ghosh,Adv.
For Uttaranchal: Ms. Rachana Srivastava,AAG.
For Karnataka: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,Adv.
Mr. Anil K. Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Vikrant Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Sashidhar,Adv.
For Kerala: Mr. G. Prakash,Adv.
Ms. Beena Prakash,Adv.
For Nagaland: Mr. U. Hazarika,Adv.
Mr. Satya Mitra,Adv.
Ms. Sumita Hazarika,Adv.
For Madhya Pradesh: Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Banthia,Adv.
For N.C.T. of Delhi: Mr. R. Mohan,ASG.
Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.
Mr. R.C. Kathia,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
For U.Ts.: Mr. R. Mohan,ASG.
Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.
Ms. Vandana Bhandari Gugnani,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
For Maharashtra: Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,Adv.
For M/o Law & Justice: Mr. S.W.A. Qadri,Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.
For State of Haryana: Mr. Manjit Singh,Adv.
Mr. Harikesh Singh,Adv.
Mr. T.V. George,Adv.
For Punjab & Haryana Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Adv.
High Court: Mr. Vinod Shukla,Adv.
Mr. Deepak Goel,Adv
Ms. S. Janani,Adv.
For Sikkim High Court: Mr. Vishnu Sharma,Adv.
For Andhra Pradesh: Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy,Adv.
Mr. P. Vinay Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Sneha Bhaskaran,Adv.
Mr. P.H. Parekh,Adv.
Mr. Sameer Parekh,Adv.
Mr. Ajay K. Jha,Adv.
Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh,Adv.
Mr. Deeksha Rai,Adv.
For Calcutta High Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Court: Mr. Raja Chatterjee,Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das,Adv.
Mr. G.S. Chatterjee,Adv.
For Himachal Pradesh: Mr. J.S. Attri,Addl.Adv.Genl.
Mr. Vivek Singh Attri,Adv.
Mr. B.S. Jain,Adv.
Mr. Ajay Veer Singh,Adv.
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Sandeep S. Tiwari,Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary,Adv.
Mr. Radhe Shyam Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Dwivedi,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
It was about five years' back that this Court directed that
existing vacancies in the subordinate ourts, at all levels,
should be filled, if possible, latest by 31st March, 2003,
in all the States. This direction is contained in the
judgement reported in All India Judges Association vs. Union
of India (2002 (4) S.C.C. 247). It has been noticed that an
independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structure of
our Constitution. If sufficient number of judges are not appointed,
justice would not be available to the people thereby
undermining the basic structure. The judicial system has been facing the
problem arising out of delay in dispensation of justice for which one of
the major cause is insufficient number of judges when compared to
either the large number of cases pending or in relation
to the average judge-population ratio going by the number
of judges available in various other democracies in the world.
In this light, it becomes all the more necessary to take all possible steps to ensure that vacancies in the courts are timely filled.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned amicus curiae,in the
written submission, has pointed out that according to
the figures given by the News Letter issued by this Court for the
period January-March, 2006, there were 2730 posts vacant in the
subordinate judiciary in the country as only 11,682 judges actually
were serving out of the approved strength of 14,402 judges, i.e.,
on an average, about twenty per cent existing posts were lying vacant.
In this matter, by judgement and
order dated 3rd April, 2006, it was observed that it is
absolutely necessary to evolve a mechanism to speedily determine
and fill vacancies of judges at all levels. For this purpose, timely
steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies,
issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration
of final results and issue of order of appointment. It
was further directed that for all these above and other
steps, it is necessary to provide to fix time schedule so
that the system works automatically and there is no delay in
filling up of the vacancies. The dates for taking up these steps can be
provided for on the pattern similar to filling of vacancies in some other
services. Adherence to strict time schedule can help in ensuring
timely filling of vacancies. In this view, all the State
Governments, Union Territories and/or High Courts were
directed to give suggestions regarding the time schedule to
be fixed so that every year vacancies that may occur are
filled. This Court also requested Mr. Vijay Hansaria, senior advocate,to
assist the court. Considering the suggestions that have been
given by the State Governments, the learned amicus curiae
submitted written submissions, which were considered by this
Court on 27th November, 2006. On the said date of hearing,
it was directed that the written submissions of the learned
amicus curiae along with the proposed suggestion as to time
schedule be sent to the State Governments/Union Territories
and High Courts so that their response/suggestions can also be taken into
consideration.Some of the State Governments and High Courts have responded
to the directions dated 27th November, 2006.
Mr. Vijay Hansaria has made additional submission having regard to the responses received from the State Governments, Union Territories and the High Courts pursuant to the order dated 27th November, 2006.
Before we issue general directions and the
time schedule to be adhered to for filling vacancies that may arise in
subordinate courts and district courts, it is necessary to
note that selections are required to be conducted by the
concerned authorities as per the existing Judicial Service
Rules in the respective States/Union Territories. We may,
however, note that, progressively, the concerned authorities
would consider, discuss and eventually may arrive at a
consensus that the selection process be conducted by the High
Court itself or by Public Service Commission under the control and
supervision of the High Court. In this regard, considerable
progress has already been made. Reference can be made to the
decision taken in a Conference held between the Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers, minutes whereof show that in some of the
States,selection of subordinate judicial officers at all
levels of civil judges is already being made by the High Courts. Some
States,where selection is still being made by the Public
Service Commission, were agreeable to entrust the selection to the High
Courts whereas Chief Ministers/Ministers of Himachal Pradesh,
West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala were of the view that the
present system may continue but the decision taken jointly
was that in the said States [Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal,
Punjab and Kerala] setting up of question papers and evaluation
of answer sheets be entrusted to the High Court. Further
decision taken was that in other States where selection of subordinate
judicial officers is not being done by the High Courts,
such selection be entrusted to the High Courts by amending
relevant Rules. In this connection, with the affidavit filed on behalf
of the Calcutta High Court, a copy of the letter dated 15th
September, 2006, addressed by the Registrar General of the said Court to
the Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal,
has also been annexed. That letter refers to the aforesaid decision
taken in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices held on
11th March, 2006 requesting the State Government for effecting suitable
amendment in the recruitment rules in terms of the decision in the
Conference above-referred. At this stage, however, these are not the
issues for our consideration. As already indicated, the selection is
to be conducted by authorities empowered to do so as per the existing Rules.
Though no submission was made by any learned
counsel appearing for any State Government that the
constitution of selection committee by the Chief Justice of
the High Court to monitor the timely appointment of judges
at subordinate/district level would amount to interference with
the independent functioning of the State Public Service
Commission, but some State Governments in their responses have indicated
so. In view of what we have already noted about the appointments to be made
in accordance with the respective Judicial Services Rules in the
States, the apprehension of interference seems to be wholly
misplaced. A Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court
to ensure that the vacancies are timely filled and the
problem of delay in dispensation of justice is tackled to
some extent under no circumstances be said to be interference
with the independent functioning of the authorities under the
Rules or of independent functioning of the State Public
Service Commission.
For filling up of vacancies in the cadre of
District Judges, accepting the proposal to which none has
objected, except in the manner hereinafter noticed, we direct as under:
A. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge
in respect of
(a) twenty five per cent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar; and
(b)twenty five per cent by promotion through limited
competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) not
having less than five years of qualifying service.
S. Description Date
No.
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 31st March
the High Court.
Vacancies to be calculated including
a] existing vacancies
b] future vacancies that may arise
within one year due to retirement.
c] future vacancies that may arise due
to elevation to the High Court, death
or otherwise, say ten per cent of the
number of posts.
d] Vacancies arising due to
deputation of judicial officers to
other department may be considered
as temporary vacancy.
2. Advertisement inviting applications 15th April
from eligible candidates
3. Last date for receipt of application 30th April
4. Publication of list of eligible 15th May
applicants
List may be put on the website
5. Despatch/issue of admit cards to the 16th May to 15th
eligible applicants June
6. Written Examination 30th June
Written examination may be
a] objective questions with multiple
choice which can be scrutinized by
the computer; and
b] subjective/narrative
S. Description Date
No.
7. Declaration of result of written 16th August
examination
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the newspaper
b] The ratio of 1 : 3 of the available
vacancies to the successful candidates
be maintained.
8. Viva Voce 1st to 7th
September
9. Declaration of final select list and 15th September
communication to the appointing
authority
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the newspaper
b] Select list be published in order of
merit and should be double the
number of vacancies notified.
c] Select list shall be valid till the
next select list is published.
10. Issue of appointment letter by the 30th September
competent authority for all existing
vacant posts as on date
11. Last date for joining 31st October
B. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge
in respect of fifty per cent vacancies to be filled by promotion.
S. Description Date
No.
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 31st March
the High Court.
Vacancies to be calculated including
a] existing vacancies
b] future vacancies that may arise
within one year due to retirement.
c] future vacancies that may arise due
to elevation to the High Court, death
or otherwise, say ten per cent of the
number of posts.
2. Publication of list of eligible officers 15th May
a] The list may be put on the website
b] Zone of consideration should be
1 : 3 of the number of vacancies
S. Description Date
No.
3. Receipt of judgments from the 30th May
eligible officers
4. Viva Voce 15th to 31st July
Criteria
a] ACR for last five years;
b] Evaluation of judgments furnished; and
c] Performance in the oral interview
5. Declaration of final select list and 31st August
communication to the appointing authority
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the newspaper
b] Select list be published in order of
merit and should be double the number of vacancies notified.
6. Issue of appointment letter by the 30th September
competent authority for all existing vacant posts as on date
7. Last date for joining 31st October
C. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to be filled by promotion.
S. Description Date
No.
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 31st March the High Court
Vacancies to be calculated including
a] existing vacancies
b] future vacancies that may arise
within one year due to retirement.
c] future vacancies that may arise due
to promotion, death or otherwise, say
ten per cent of the number of posts.
2. Publication of list of eligible officers 15th May
a] The list may be put on the website
b] Zone of consideration should be
1 : 3 of the number of vacancies
3. Receipt of judgments from the 30th May
eligible officers
S. Description Date
No.
4. Viva Voce 1st to 16th August
Criteria
a] ACR for last five years;
b]Evaluation of Judgments furnished; and
c] Performance in the oral interview
5. Declaration of final select list and 15th September
communication to the appointing authority
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the newspaper
b] Select list be published in order of
merit and should be double the
number of vacancies notified.
6. Issue of appointment letter by the 30th September
competent authority for all existing
vacant posts as on date
7. Last date for joining 31st October
D. For appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) by direct recruitment.
S. Description Date
No.
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 15th January
the High Court.
Vacancies to be calculated including
a] existing vacancies
b] future vacancies that may arise
within one year due to retirement.
c] future vacancies that may arise due
to promotion, death or otherwise, say
ten per cent of the number of posts.
2. Advertisement inviting applications 1st February
from eligible candidates
3. Last date for receipt of application 1st March
4. Publication of list of eligible 2nd April
applicants
The list may be put on the website
5. Despatch/issue of admit cards to the 2nd to 30th April
eligible applicants
S. Description Date
No.
6. Preliminary written examination 15th May
Objective questions with multiple
choice which can be scrutinized by
computer
7. Declaration of result of preliminary 15th June
written examination
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the Newspaper
b] The ratio of 1 : 10 of the available
vacancies to the successful candidates
be maintained
8. Final Written examination 15th July
Subjective/narrative
9. Declaration of result of final written 30th August
examination
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the Newspaper
b] The ratio of 1 : 3 of the available
vacancies to the successful candidates
be maintained
c] Dates of interview of the successful
candidates may be put on the internet
which can be printed by the
candidates and no separate
intimation of the date of interview
need be sent.
10. Viva Voce 1st to 15th
October
11. Declaration of final select list and 1st November
communication to the appointing authority
a] Result may be put on the website and also published in the newspaper
b] Select list be published in order of merit and should be double the number of vacancies notified.
12. Issue of appointment letter by the 1st December
competent authority for all existing vacant posts as on date
13. Last date for joining 2nd January of the folowing year.
These directions would not be applicable to the judiciary in the
Sikkim High Court in view of a very small cadre of judiciary in that State.
We request the Chief Justice of each High Court to
constitute a committee of two or three judges to monitor and oversee that
timely selection and appointment of judicial officers is made.
The Chief Justice is further requested to constitute a special cell in
the name of `Selection and Appointment' in the High Court
or under such other name as the learned Chief Justice
may be consider proper with an officer of the rank of Registrar for assisting the Committee and the Chief Justice for complying with the aforesaid time schedule.
The Registrar of the aforesaid selection and
appointment committee shall send to the Registrar General of this Court by 31st January every year report as regards the filling up of vacancies with copies to Minister for Law and Justice in the Central Government and the Law Minister of the
concerned State. The Registrar would also bring it to the notice of the Committee and the Chief Justice any deviation from the time schedule.
Insofar as the State of Bihar is concerned, the Patna High Court has suggested that due to feasibility of floods, the time schedule between June and November is not feasible and that the time schedule of one year may be modified so as to complete the selection process from December to June in the said State. Learned counsel for the State Government and the Public Service Commission has supported the view-point of the High Court. Accordingly, the High Court can suitably, after consulting with the Public Service Commission and the State Government, amend the aforesaid time schedule. The amended time schedule be filed in this Court.
Insofar as Delhi is concerned, it has been stated that entire selection process is conducted by the High Court and examination is held twice in a year for the Delhi Judicial Service. The High Court may, accordingly, amend the aforesaid time schedule so as to conduct the selection process twice in a year and the revised time schedule shall be placed on the record of this case. For the present, the Delhi High Court is permitted three months' time for publication of final result after the written examination.
"The appointment letters shall be issued by the State Government within one month of receipt of the recommendations from the respective High Court/State Public Service Commission.
The select list prepared for all categories of officials shall be valid till the next select list is published.
We further direct that ten per cent of unforeseen
vacancies would be in respect of sanctioned posts and not
vacancies occurring in a particular year.
List of candidates eligible to appear in the
examination and final list shall also be published in the local newspaper and be personally intimated to the officers, in addition to the same being placed on the website.
The High Courts/State Governments/Union Territories shall be at liberty to apply to this Court for variation in the time schedule in case of any difficulty having regard to the peculiar geographical and climatic conditions in the State or other relevant consideration. However, till such time a different time schedule is permitted, the aforesaid time schedule shall be adhered to and appointments made accordingly.
We place on record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned amicus curiae. For further directions, list the matter after four
months.
[ T.I. Rajput ] [ V.P. Tyagi ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Assistant Registrar