Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea Of Judicial Officers Having Less Than 3 Years Of Service To Appear For UPHJS Eligibility Test 2020

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by UP Judicial Services Association along with some of the judicial officers (having less than 3 years of experience as of December 31, 2021) seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those judges who have completed three years in service can't be interfered with by the Court in its Writ jurisdiction.

The case in brief

Essentially, in December 2020, the Allahabad High Court had issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up 98 (87+11/backlog) vacancies of the Higher Judicial Service for the recruitment year 2020 through direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates under the 25% quota provided in Rule 6 (ii) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule 1975.

Now, the petitioners moved the Court contending that as the quota of direct recruitment as provided in Rule 6 (ii) of the Rules of 1975 is 25% (total of 87 seats), a total of 348 vacancies would be available in the recruitment year 2020 for U. P. Higher Judicial Services.

Further, it was their contention that a total of 215 posts out of 348 vacancies of Higher Judicial Services, which occurred in the recruitment year 2020, should be filled up by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division).

The U.P. Judicial Services Association further submitted that it had sent a representation to the Registrar (Selection and Appointment) of the High Court that the Judicial Officers in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cadre falling in the Zone of consideration (three times of the number of vacancies advertised) who have completed more than two years of service in the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Cadre, be permitted to appear in the suitability test for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service Cadre.

However, it was submitted that on May 30, 2022, a notice was issued by the High Court stating that the suitability test – 2020 for promotion of officers in U.P. Nyayik Seva to U.P. Higher Judicial Services will be held on 11.06.2022. 

Along with it, a list of 150 officers, who have completed three years' service as of 31.12.2021 in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), including the names of the officers who are working as Additional District Judge (FTC), and are eligible to appear in the suitability test 2020 was also published by the Court.

Against this backdrop, the Petitioners submitted that notifying the names of only 150 eligible officers is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 20 (2) of the Rules of 1975. It was their case that all of them and other judges of the senior division who have not completed 3 years of service be included in the list of persons eligible for the eligibility test.

As per the petitioners, the fixation of the cut of date as 31.12.2021 and imposition of the condition of having completed three years' service as on 31.12.2021 in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) for eligibility to appear in the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Suitability Test 2020 violates Rule 5 (a) of the Rules of 1975, as the condition of having completed three years' service in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has not been provided as an eligibility condition in the aforesaid Rule.

It was their case that the promotions should be made from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of merit – cum – seniority and passing the suitability test under Rule-5 (a) of the Rules of 1975, without any reference to the length of their service.

All in all, as per the petitioners, the eligibility list published on 30.05.2022 should consist of 860 candidates in view of Rule 20 (2) of Rules of 1975 and there should not be any eligibility condition of 3 years in service as of December 31, 2021.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court observed that the scope of interference by the High Court while deciding the petition for issuance of Certiorari is limited to examining the decision-making process by examining as to whether the decision-making process suffers from any illegality or infirmity.

Further, the Court stressed that the correctness of the decision cannot be examined by the High Court while deciding a petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari as the decision can only be examined on the touchstone of reasonableness and arbitrariness but the sufficiency or correctness of the reasons cannot be gone into by the High Court.

Now, regarding the facts of the case, the Court noted that the list of only those Civil Judges (Senior Division) who have completed three years' service has been prepared to treat them as eligible to appear in the Suitability Test 2022 under Rule 22 (3) was prepared in furtherance of decision of the Selection and Appointment Committee.

The Court noted that the committee had formed a reasoned opinion in the exercise of its power under Rule 20 (3) that only those officers are fit to be considered for appointment on the basis of merit-cum-seniority who have completed a minimum period of three years on the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division).

"This decision has been taken by the Selection and Appointment Committee keeping into consideration that the vacancies had occurring up to 31.12.2021 and it was felt not to be proper to go beyond that date to fix any date to determine the qualifying service in Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre for consideration of their promotion to Higher Judicial cadre. The Committee was also of the opinion that by inclusion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) who have not completed three years on the said post would result in higher number of the Courts of Civil Judge (Senior Division) falling vacant and this would create a situation where the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) will collapse owing to huge number of vacant Courts. Therefore, the list of officers prepared under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 consequent to the aforesaid decision, needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction," the Court remarked as it dismissed the plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner:- Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Purusottam Awasthi

Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

Case title - Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up Thru. Its Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Appointment Civil Secrtt. Lko And Another

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 286

Click Here To Read/Download Order