Judges Denied Promotion Question Haryana Govt's Consultation With Union Law Ministry For District Judiciary Appointments

Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates in Haryana who sought appointment to the district judiciary have challenged the State's decision rejecting High Court's recommendations for promotion of 13 judicial officers.

They said the State government breached "Constitutional protocol" by involving the Union Law Ministry in matter of appointment of district judges.

Article 233 of the Constitution prescribes that appointment of district judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the jurisdictional High Court. However, the Haryana government has rejected the High Court's recommendation citing a "legal opinion" obtained from the Central Ministry. The decision was taken after the judges approached the High Court seeking to conclude the selection process.

In an amended petition, the aggrieved judges said,

"The State Government in a complete breach of constitutional protocol, instead of seeking consultation with this Hon'ble Court, stepped beyond the contours of Article 233 and the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007...sought the legal opinion of Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi. It is reiterated that such act has been in violation of the constitutional mandate prescribed under Article 233, which provides for a consultation with this Hon'ble High Court alone, and no other party or entity."

The amended petition adds that even after seeking legal opinion from the Centre, no communication or consultation was sought from the High Court.

Haryana government said the legal opinion was sought after it received a letter from an Advocate alleging that the High Court modified the eligibility criteria for appointments, without involving the State government. Union Law Ministry said consultation with State government for amending the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules is "mandatory".

The petitioners argue that once there is no bar in the statutory rules, the High Court would be well within its power to prescribe minimum pass marks/cut-off for written and oral examinations in order to get the best available talent. "Where a Rules does not prescribe any minimum standard, the High Court could supplement the Rules with a view to implement relevant standards and the same would not be considered violative of the statute…”

They pray that the State's decision be set aside and it be directed to give effect to the High Court's recommendation.

The matter will be taken up on October 09.

Case Title: Shikha & others Vs. State of Haryana and others

Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate with Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate for the petitioners.