'High Court Best Suited To Understand Needs To Judicial Service' : Supreme Court Rejects Haryana Govt's Plea To Conduct Civil Judge Recruitment By PSC
The Court further directed the State to take steps to immediately fill 175 posts of Junior Civil Judges.
High Court is best suited to understand the needs of judicial services, said the Supreme Court while rejecting an application filed by the State of Haryana seeking to hold the selection process for Junior Civil Judges by the State Public Service Commission instead of a Selection Committee which has representatives of the High Court."Judges of the High Court who participate in the...
High Court is best suited to understand the needs of judicial services, said the Supreme Court while rejecting an application filed by the State of Haryana seeking to hold the selection process for Junior Civil Judges by the State Public Service Commission instead of a Selection Committee which has representatives of the High Court.
"Judges of the High Court who participate in the selection process have domain knowledge both of the subject and of the nature of the service", the Court said.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra was dealing with an application filed by the State of Haryana in Malik Mazhar Sultan v UP Public Service Commission, a case pertaining to judicial vacancies. The State wanted the recruitment to be done through the Haryana Public Service Commission completely by modifying an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court by which a selection committee consisting of three representatives from the High Court, among others, was constituted for viva-voce.
In support of State, Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinha submitted that the State of Haryana should be permitted to conduct the entire selection process through the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the Judicial Branch. He argued that Rule 4 of Part-C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951 provided that the examination papers shall be set and marks shall be awarded by the examiners appointed by the Public Service Commission. Further, a representative of the High Court was to be one of the members of the Selection Committee for conducting the viva voce and the opinion given by that representative in regard to the suitability of the candidate would not be disregarded, except for cogent reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, he asserted that in terms of the mandate of the Rules, it was for the Public Service Commission to carry out the entire process of recruitment and only a limited role was assigned to the representative of the High Court in conducting interviews.
Per contra, on behalf of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Senior Advocate PS Patwalia submitted that since the year 2007, a consistent pattern had been followed as per which recruitment had been made under the Selection Committee consisting of three representatives of the High Court and three other members – (a) the Advocate General; (b) the Chief Secretary; and (c) the Chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission. He argued that this process which had been consistently followed should not be deviated from. Further, he stated that the entrustment of the process to the High Court would protect the integrity and independence of the selection process.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, the amicus curiae in the matter argued that the vacancies in Haryana Civil Judge Junior Division existed as the posts were not advertised due to differences between the State Government and High Court about the manner of holding examinations.
He further asserted that the matter may be disposed of by directing that preliminary and written examination shall be conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission as per Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). However, viva voce shall be conducted by Selection Committee(s) headed by one or more High Court judges as may be nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court. Advocate-on-Record Sneha Kalita was the assisting the amicus in the matter.
In its order, the Supreme Court noted that several states had already entrusted the selection process to the High Courts.
Further, it noted that the consistent pattern followed by the State Government was that recruitment to the judicial service had been entrusted to a Selection Committee.This was in terms of the earlier directions passed by the Supreme Court.
"If the State Government wished to bring about any change in that position, it was incumbent upon it to consult the High Court and to do so based on cogent material bearing on objective data indicating the justification for abrogating the involvement of the High Court in conducting the selection examination and overseeing the process...Hence, for the above reasons, we are of the view that the State Government has not placed sufficient material before this Court to warrant a deviation from the course of action which has been pursued since 2007, for over fifteen years, including, as recently as by the notification dated 14 December 2020." the Court said.
Direction issued to fill up 175 posts urgently
Further, the Court directed the Haryana government to take requisite steps to ensure that the vacancies for junior civil judge posts expeditiously. Underlining that there was an "urgent need" to fill the 175 existing vacancies of Junior Civil Judges at the earliest, the bench directed the State Government to take necessary steps within two weeks to ensure that the recruitment is conducted by a Committee consisting of (i) three Judges of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice; (ii) the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana; (iii) the Advocate General of Haryana; and (iv) the Chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission.
Case Title: Malik Mazhar Sultan And Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary And Ors. C.A. No. 1867/2006
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 832