LI Network
Published on: February 13, 2024 at 12:31 IST
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has raised the query on whether a High Court is obligated to consult the State Government while formulating criteria for the selection of District Judges.
The issue emerged during the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive to the Haryana Government to accept recommendations for appointing 13 District Judges.
The contentious aspect revolves around the High Court’s stipulation that candidates must secure a minimum of 50% in the viva-voce examination.
The State Government objected, arguing that the High Court had unilaterally set this cutoff without consulting the State, as mandated by Article 233(1) of the Constitution.
Article 233(1) stipulates that the Governor of the State, in consultation with the High Court, shall make appointments, postings, and promotions of district judges in any State.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Haryana, asserted that Article 233(1) mandates consultation with the State.
However, the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud questioned whether the High Court needed to consult the State for laying down the selection criteria, stating that defining the process did not equate to appointments and promotions.
The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, scrutinized the issue of a 50% cutoff in viva voce set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The State objected to this criterion, claiming that it was not consulted, as required by Article 233(1).
The Court observed that the High Court criticized the State for seeking legal opinion from the Union Government, deeming it an assault on the High Court’s independence.
The petitioner’s concerns included the lack of amendment to the Punjab and Haryana Superior Judiciary Rules to introduce a 50% cutoff for interviews and discrimination against candidates in the 50% quota.
Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, representing a petitioner, highlighted that the criteria were not disclosed to candidates initially, coming to light only through RTI disclosures.
The Court referred to the petitioner’s argument about discrimination and non-disclosure, emphasizing the importance of merit, particularly for those in the 65% quota for promotions.
The senior counsel cited a recent Supreme Court judgment criticizing the Jharkhand High Court for altering selection criteria midway.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing a petitioner, emphasized the determination of inter se seniority in Punjab, asserting that candidates from Punjab would not face disadvantages.
He also underscored the importance of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) in evaluating merit, advocating for more significance in ACRs over viva voce performance.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the weightage given to interviews should be minimal to avoid arbitrariness.
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing the Punjab and Haryana High Court, countered the arguments, stating that rules can be supplemented when silent, and not having a set cutoff for viva voce encourages mediocrity.
The Court will continue the hearing, considering the various aspects raised in the case. The background involves the Punjab & Haryana High Court directing Haryana to accept recommendations for appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and session judges, a decision challenged by civil judges (senior division) and CJMs in Haryana.
The hearing pertains to the promotion of 13 judicial officers and the petition filed by those not recommended for promotion.
Case Details: Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others Diary No(s).508/2024.