Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Judicial Officer's Plea Seeking Consideration For Elevation As Kerala High Court Judge

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna allowed the petitioner Mohammand Vaseem, who is at present serving as Idukki District and Sessions Judge, to withdraw the petition.

The petitioner sought liberty to make representation to the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court along with directions for expeditious disposal of the representation since the petition had averred that the officer had not received any response of the earlier representation dated June 14, 2021.

Filed through Advocates V Shyamohan and Surya Prakash for KMNP Law Offices, the writ petition alleged that the petitioner was unjustly excluded from the zone of consideration for elevation.

Appearing for the judicial officer, Advocate Kuriakose Varghese submitted that the judicial officer had rendered exemplary selfless services for more than three decades in the judiciary with utmost sincerity and integrity.  

It was also his contention that the officer was eligible and entitled to be considered as far back as on November 16, 2019 against a vacancy which had arisen upon the retirement of Justice Annie John, but he was not considered on account of a misconception that a transferee judge from Bombay High Court from service quota had filled up the said vacancy.

Upon Counsel's submission, Justice BR Gavai asked, "You are saying that there is violation of fundamental rights. Is the right to be considered for promotion as a judge, Fundamental Right?"

Submitting that the judicial officer was the senior-most member who was due to retire on October 31, 2021, the Counsel further argued that he had aspirations to be appointed as judge of Kerala High Court.

"Aspirations are not always fulfilled Mr Varghese, even when you consider that the time is right. They are all incidental to our lives," remarked Justice LN Rao.

Emphasis was placed on the RTI query sent by the CPIO & Section Officer (Appointments), Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice which clarified the following position:

• Transferee Judge continues to be a Judge of his parent High Court and wherever the Judge goes, he carries his seniority along with him, as far as his parent High Court is concerned;
• Transferee Judge continues to be a Judge of his parent High Court along with his source of elevation and wherever the Judge goes he carries his seniority along with him, as far as his parent High Court is concerned; and
• Transferee Judge neither alters nor fills the quota reserved for elevation of Judges of transferred High Court.

The petition had contended that a transferee Judge could not have filled the vacancy which arose on account of retirement of a Judge from service quota in the transferred High Court and that the Petitioner should have been considered against the said vacancy.

The plea had also sought relief for declaring the officer eligible and entitled to be considered appointment as a High Court Judge in terms of Article 217/224, against the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of Justice Annie John on November 16, 2019. Prayer was also included for declaring that a transferee Judge from a different High Court could not fill up the vacancy arising on account of retirement of a judge of the transferred High Court.

Case : Mohammad Vaseem v. Union of India and others ,WP(c) 755/2021.

Click here to read/download the order