P&H High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Haryana Govt On Judicial Officers' Plea Over Non-Promotion Despite HC Directions

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has issued a contempt notice to Haryana's Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary, Home and Administration of Justice Department, on plea filed by Civil Judges (Senior Division) and CJM, alleging disobedience of 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 Haryana Government to give "necessary effect"  to the High Court's recommendations made for the promotion of the judicial officers, "within two weeks."

While issuing notice to the respondents Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, listed the matter for March 21.

The plea states that delaying the appointments of the Judges is not only contempt of the directions passed by the High Court, "but the said deliberate act of omission and commission is 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."

Reliance was placed upon KH Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and others, [(2006) 6 SCC 395] where in reference was made as such to the power of the High Court to prescribe a minimum pass marks for the subordinate judiciary and it was held that the High Court was best judge in the matter and vested with the entire administration for the subordinate judiciary under Articles 233 to 235 for high traditions and standards to be maintained.

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 Advocate Harsh Chopra

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