'File Compliance Report Or Chief Secy Must Appear': High Court Raps Haryana Govt In Contempt Plea Over Non-Promotion Of District Judges Despite HC Orders

The Punjab & Haryana High Court today, took exception to the Haryana Government in a contempt plea filed by Civil Judges (Senior Division) and CJM, alleging disobedience of the High Court's directions to accept its recommendations made to promote 13 judicial officers as Additional District and Session Judges.

In December 2023, the High Court had directed the Haryana Government to give "necessary effect" to the High Court's recommendations made for the promotion of the judicial officers, within two weeks.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat asked the state to file the compliance report within three weeks or the Chief Secretary would have to appear in person.

The Court said by not complying with the High Court's direction the State would create a "constitutional crisis" and warned the Chief Secretary of the dire consequences. "Advise your chief secretary to not to take it lightly, once there is an order there is an order...," it added.

The counsel appearing for petitioners also informed the Court that the State has not even paid the cost of  Rs.50,000 which was imposed by the Court to be paid to the petitioners, for unnecessarily delaying the promotion and denying them their legitimate right to work on a higher post.

The contempt petition was filed by Civil Judges stating that delaying their appointments was not only contempt of the directions passed by the High Court, but was in complete disregard to the moral and legal duty of the State to provide easy and faster access to justice to the litigants.

Proceedings before the High Court

The plea was filed by the Haryana Civil judges (senior division) and CJMs in 2023, who sought appointment to the district judiciary challenging the State's decision rejecting the High Court's recommendations for the promotion of 13 judicial officers. The judicial officers who were not recommended for promotion by the high court also filed a petition challenging the recommendations.

In an affidavit, Haryana Chief Secretary Sanjeev Kaushal submitted that they took legal opinion from the Union Law Ministry on the matter which said that the Haryana government would not be bound to accept the High Court's recommendations if the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules were amended unilaterally by the HC.

Kaushal said they had received an Advocate's letter namely Prem Pal, alleging that the High Court modified the eligibility criteria for appointments, without involving the State government. It was alleged that the High Court prescribed cut-off marks in viva voce as 50%, without consulting the State or even giving any public notice of the same.

The Union Law Ministry said that consultation with the State government for amending the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules is "mandatory" and in case of alleged non-consultation, the Haryana Government may even opt for a judicial review.

The High Court rejected the above submissions and referred to Chandramouleshwar Prasad v Patna High Court & Ors. [(1970) 2 SCR 666] and opined, "the State Government was not within its right to take a different decision and overrule the recommendation of this Court on the basis of a meddlesome interloper namely Prem Pal, Advocate who was in no way connected remotely with the selection process."

The bench also opined that the State government's move to seek a legal opinion from the Union Government in the matter would amount to a serious assault on the independence of the functioning of the High Court.

In light of the above the Court directed the State in December 2023, to take positive action to accept the recommendation of the High Court for the promotion of judges to within a period of two weeks.

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

The High Court's final judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court by the State of Haryana and the unsuccessful candidates.

The High Court's action was challenged primarily on the ground that the Rules do not prescribe minimum cut-off criteria for viva voce. The State of Haryana objected to the direction on the ground that the High Court did not consult the State Government as per the mandate of Article 233 before framing the criteria.

The Supreme Court observed that since the Rules are silent on the aspect of a minimum cut-off for viva voce, the High Court was justified in prescribing such a condition through a Full Court resolution.

The Supreme Court upheld the criteria set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that judicial officers seeking promotion to the post of District Judges should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interviews.

Counsel for the petitioner Advocates Ravinder Malik, Harsh Chopra.

Shikha & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kaushal, Chief Secretary, Haryana & Anr.