'Why Should This Case Get Precedence?' : Supreme Court Refuses To Urgently Hear Gujarat Judges' Plea To Vacate Stay On Promotion

The Supreme Court on Monday refused a request for urgent hearing of an interim application seeking vacation of an order that stayed the promotion of 68 Gujarat magistrates to district judge posts.

The matter was listed before a division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal today.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing on behalf of some of the respondents, requested the Court to take up the matter urgently.

"The interim order is hurting us. Promotion has been stayed. We may be heard on the interim relief of vacating stay. These are drastic orders. Interim orders are against the law laid down by this court. This is a one-hour case, lordships may take it tomorrow," he requested.

Justice Roy however asked the Counsel why the said case needed to be prioritised. "Why should it be taken up tomorrow? Why should this case get precedence? We have far more pressing and important matters tomorrow. I decline your request. Can you guarantee that the other matters are less important?”

The Court informed Dave that it would not be able to decide the matter by July 31, when some of the judges are set to retire.

Dave however stated that the Court may not be disturbed by his suggestions. “We do this every day. We owe it to our clients, the subordinate judges," he submitted. To which Justice Roy replied, "Mr, Dave is so persuasive that sometimes we appear disturbed. It is not so. We can have a calm discussion. But we cannot grant the interim relief by the date you want at this stage."

The plea before the Top Court was filed challenging the decision of the Gujarat Government and Gujarat High Court to make district judge appointments on the basis on seniority-cum-merit. 

In May 2023, the Apex Court had stayed the promotion of judicial officers as District Judges in the State of Gujarat, after taking exception to the State Government notifying the promotions while the legality of the promotions was a sub-judice issue before the Court. A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar had stayed the recommendation made by the Gujarat High Court for the promotion of the judicial officers and the consequent notification issued by the Government to implement the recommendation.

"Promotions must be made on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test. Recommendations by High Court & subsequent government notification are illegal", the Court had said in its order. 

Background

The plea before the Apex Court sought to challenge the recommendations made by the Gujarat government for the promotion of district judges in the state. According to the petitioners – both unsuccessful candidates – the appointments had been made by a March notification on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit principle, in contravention to the recruitment rules, which specified that district judge posts would be filled up by reserving 65 per cent of seats on merit-cum-seniority basis and on the candidates passing a suitability test.

The Apex Court had issued notice to the High Court and State Government on April 13th. However, less than a week after this, the state government notified the promotions of the judges recommended by the High Court.

In response to this, the Supreme Court expressed its stern disapproval describing it an ‘overreach’ by the executive. The Top Court took strong exception to the promotions granted to district judges in Gujarat in March, during the pendency of the plea challenging the names recommended by the High Court. “We are prima facie of the opinion that it is nothing but overreaching the court’s process and the present proceedings,” the bench observed. It had pronounced on April 28 as follows:

“It is very unfortunate that despite the fact that the respondents/State Government were aware of the present proceedings, the state government has issued the promotion order after the receipt of the notice issued by this court in the proceedings. In the promotion order even the state government had stated that the promotions are subject to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order when this court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed issuing notice. It is to be noted that the selection was of the year 2022, therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order.”

The division bench also summoned the state secretary to court on the next date of hearing to offer an explanation in person, indicating that if it was not satisfied with the said explanation, the government’s notification would be suspended.

In early May, in the presence of the government officers in court, Justice Shah questioned the counsel for the state of Gujarat, demanding an explanation for its decision to notify the promotions when the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. Once again, the judge chastised the government for trying to ‘overreach’ the court’s process. Justice Shah exclaimed:

“What was the extraordinary hurry that the state government could not wait ten days before notifying the promotions? Is your secretary above the law? This is nothing but an attempt to overreach this court and the present proceedings. We are taking this matter very seriously. We can finish anyone’s career. Never try to overreach the Supreme Court’s process.”

Case Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs High Court of Gujarat, Writ Petition (C) No. 432 Of 2023