Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following as Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court:

  • Chandra Kumar Rai
  • Krishan Pahal
  • Sameer Jain
  • Ahutosh Srivastava
  • Subhash Vidyarthi
  • Brij Raj Singh
  • Shree Prakash Singh
  • Vikas Budhwar

The above are to be Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court for a period of 2 years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 12-10-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges of the Rajasthan High Court and directs them to assume charge of their respective offices: –

Sl. No. Name (S/Shri) Name of the High Court in which appointed
1. Farjand Ali, Advocate Rajasthan
2. Sudesh Bansal, Advocate Rajasthan
3. Anoop Kumar Dhand, Advocate Rajasthan
4. Vinod Kumar Bharwani, Judicial Officer Rajasthan
5. Madan Gopal Vyas, Judicial Officers Rajasthan

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 11-10-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal for appointment of the following persons as Judicial Member and Accountant Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for a period of 4 years with effect from the date of assumption of the charge of the post, or until attaining the age of 67 years, or until further order, whichever is the earliest:

Judicial Member


Un-Reserved Category


  • Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Advocate
  • Ms S. Seethalakshmi, Advocate
  • Shri Shatin Goyal, Additional District & Sessions Judge
  • Shri Anubhav Sharma, Additional District & Sessions Judge

OBC Category


Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Advocate


SC Category


Shri Manmohan Das, Law Officer in SBI


Accountant Member


Un-Reserved Category


  • Bhagirath Mal Biyani, Chartered Accountant
  • Balakrishnan S. Chartered Accountant
  • Jamiappa Dattatraya Battull, Chartered Accountant
  • Padmavathy S, Chartered Accountant
  • Arun Khodpia, Chartered Accountant

OBC Category


Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Chartered Accountant


SC Category


Ripote Dipak Pandurang, Commissioner of Income Tax

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court


President appoints Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, senior-most Judge of Karnataka High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka relinquishes the charge as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court consequent upon his appointment as Judge of the Supreme Court of India.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 27-8-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Supreme Court Judges


President appoints the following Judges as Supreme Court Judges:

  • Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court
  • Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court
  • Justice Vikram Nath, Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court
  • Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi, Judge, Gujarat High Court
  • Justice M.M. Sundresh, Judge, Madras High Court
  • Justice Chudalayil Thevan Ravikumar, Judge, Kerala High Court
  • Justice Bangalore Venkataramiah Nagarathna, Judge, Karnataka High Court,
  • Justice Hima Kohli, Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court
  • Shri Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notifications dt. 26-08-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of 4 Additional Judges

President of India appoints the following 4 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court for a period of 2 years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices:

  • Shri Rajesh Narayandas Laddha
  • Shri Sanjay Ganpatrao Mehare,
  • Shri Govinda Ananda Sanap and
  • Shri Shivkumar Ganpatrao Dige

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 23-06-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court

President appoints Shri Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, senior-most Judge of the Allahabad High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 26-06-2021 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court.


Ministry of Law and Justice

Notification dt. 22-06-2021

Appointments & TransfersNews

Justice Arun Kumar Mishra, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, has joined as the new Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, NHRC, India.

Justice Arun Mishra the 8th Chairperson of the NHRC, India.

Background

He was born on 3rd September 1955. After completing B.Sc. M.A. L.L.B. joined the Bar in 1978 and practised in constitutional, civil, industrial, service and criminal matters.

He was elected as the youngest Chairman of the Bar Council of India in 1998 and particularly focused on the improvement of legal education. During his Chairmanship, the Bar Council of India decided to close the evening Law Colleges and also decided that 5-year Law Course should be started instead of 3 years Course in all the colleges. More than two hundred sub-standard law colleges were closed by the BCI. Also, amount of medical aid to lawyers was enhanced.

He was instrumental in the drafting and implementation of Foreign Law Degree Recognition Rules of 1997 under Advocates Act, 1961; Bar Council of India Employees Service Rules,1996 and Rules pertaining to Foreign Lawyers Conditions of Practice in India.

He was appointed Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 25th October 1999 and appointed as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on 26th November 2010 and held the office till his appointment as the Chief Justice of the High Court at Calcutta on 14th December 2012.

Justice Mishra was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 7th July 2014 and held the position till his superannuation on 2nd September 2020. During his tenure as a Supreme Court Judge, he delivered 236 judgements. Out of this 199 were in two Judges Bench,32 in three Judges Bench and 5 in five Judges Bench.


National Human Rights Commission

[Press Release dt. 02-06-2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor, Additional Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court to be a Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, with effect from the date she assumes charge of her office.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 28-04-2021]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Activating the “dormant” Article 224A of the Constitution, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ has issued some general guidelines for the appointment of ad hoc Judges to deal with the unprecedented situation arising from the backlog of cases pending in the High Courts, which has now crossed the figure of 57 lakh coupled with the consistent ratio of vacancies of almost 40 per cent.

While the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 224A is not, the Court stated that certain checks and balances must be provided so that Article 224A can be resorted to only on the process having being initiated for filling up of the regular vacancies and awaiting their appointments.

GUIDELINES

i. Trigger Point for activation of Article 224A:

The Trigger Point cannot be singular and there can be more than one eventuality where the it arises

  1. If the vacancies are more than 20% of the sanctioned strength.
  2. The cases in a particular category are pending for over five years.
  3. More than 10% of the backlog of pending cases are over five years old.
  4. The percentage of the rate of disposal is lower than the institution of the cases either in a particular subject matter or generally in the Court.
  5. Even if there are not many old cases pending, but depending on the jurisdiction, a situation of mounting arrears is likely to arise if the rate of disposal is consistently lower than the rate of filing over a period of a year or more.

ii. Embargo Situation:

If recommendations have not been made for more than 20% of the regular vacancies then the trigger for recourse to Article 224A would not arise.

As per data, there are only ten High Courts having fewer than 20% vacancies as on 1.4.2021; seven High Courts having fewer than 10% vacancies in permanent appointments but then there may be additional Judges and there are cases which are in the pipeline.

“Thus, the parameter we have adopted is that, at least, the recommendations should have been made leaving not more than 20% vacancies in order to take recourse to Article 224A.”

iii. Pre-recommendation process:

  1. Past performance of recommendees in both quality and quantum of disposal of cases should be factored in for selection as the objective is to clear the backlog.
  2. The Chief Justice should prepare a panel of Judges and former Judges. Naturally this will be in respect of Judges on the anvil of retirement and normally Judges who have recently retired preferably within a period of one year. However, there can be situations where the Judge may have retired earlier but his expertise is required in a particular subject matter. There may also be a scenario where the Judge(s) may prefer to take some time off before embarking upon a second innings albeit a short one. In the preparation of panel, in order to take consent and take into account different factors, a personal interaction should be held with the Judge concerned by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

iv. Methodology of Appointment:

Para 24 of the MoP lays down a procedure for appointment under Article 224A of the Constitution must be followed to see the progress made and impediments, if any. However, since the Judges are already appointed to the post through a warrant of appointment, the occasion to refer the matter to the IB or other agencies would not arise in such a case, which would itself shorten the time period.

v. Time to complete the process:

The requirement that recommendations should be made six months in advance by the Chief Justice of the High Court emanates from the concept that the said period should be required to complete the process in case of a regular appointment of a Judge under Article 217 or 224 of the Constitution of India. Since there are a number of aspects not required to be adverted to for appointment under Article 224A, a period of about three months should be sufficient to process a recommendation and, thus, ideally a Chief Justice should start the process three months in advance for such appointment.

vi. Tenure of Appointment:

The tenure for which an ad hoc Judge is appointed may vary on the basis of the need but suffice to say that in order to give an element of certainty and looking to the purpose for which they are appointed, generally the appointment should be for a period between two to three years.

vii. Number of Appointments:

At least, for the time being dependent on the strength of the High Court and the problem faced by the Court, the number of ad hoc Judges should be in the range of two to five in a High Court.

viii. Role of ad hoc Judges:

  • More than five year old cases to be assigned to the ad hoc Judges so appointed. However, this would not impinge upon the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court, if exigencies so demand for any particular subject matter even to deal with the cases less than five years old, keeping the primary objective to deal with long pending arrears in mind.
  • A division bench of ad hoc Judge and sitting Judge in matters to be heard by Division Bench not to be constituted. The Division Bench, at present, may be constituted only of ad hoc Judges because these are old cases which need to be taken up by them.
  • Because of the very nature of the profile and work to be carried out by ad hoc Judges, it would not be permissible for an ad hoc Judge to perform any other legal work whether it be advisory, of arbitration or appearance.

ix. Emoluments and Allowances:

For all practical purposes the ad hoc Judge would receive the same emoluments, allowances and benefits as are admissible to the permanent/additional Judges.”

  • The emoluments and allowances of an ad hoc Judge should be at par with a permanent Judge of that Court at the relevant stage of time minus the pension.

“This is necessary to maintain the dignity of the Judge as also in view of the fact that all other legal work has been prohibited by us in terms of the aforesaid guidelines.”

  • Emoluments to be paid would be a charge on the Consolidated Fund of India consisting of salary and allowances.

“… it is a misconceived notion that there will be an additional burden on the State Government if some perquisites are made available to ad hoc Judges by the State Government. The trigger for appointment of ad hoc Judges is the very existence of vacancies and had these vacancies been filled in, the State Government would have incurred these expenses anyhow. In any case there is a limit placed on the number of ad hoc Judges and, thus, the existence of vacancies actually results in the savings for the State Government(s), which would otherwise be amount expended as their allowances and perks.”

  • All allowance/perks/perquisites as are admissible to the permanent/additional Judge(s) would be given to the ad hoc Judge(s).
  • As far as housing accommodation is concerned, either the rent-free accommodation should be made available or the housing allowance should be provided on the same terms and conditions.

The Court concluded with the following words,

“We have taken the first step with the hope and aspiration that all concerned would cooperate and retiring/retired Judges would come forth and offer their services in the larger interest of the Judiciary. The guidelines cannot be exhaustive and that too at this stage. If problems arise, we will endeavour to iron them out.”

[Lok Prahari v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1236 OF 2019, decided on 22.04.2021]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Taking note of the existing 220 vacancies in the High Courts, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobe, CJ and SK Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ stressed upon the importance of the Chief Justices of the High Courts making recommendations in time and said that there is no such impediment to initiate a new process without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations.

The Court noted that the vacancies are known and the norms permit making recommendations up to six months in advance. However, even recommendations for 220 existing vacancies appear not to have been made much less for vacancies, which are going to arise in the next six months.

We, thus, once again, emphasise the requirement and desirability of the Chief Justices of the High Courts, who will make endeavour to recommend vacancies as early as possible even if they are not made at one go. We may add that even in the earlier orders we have noted the apparent hesitation of some High Courts to recommend names when the earlier list(s) is in the pipeline. We have opined that there is no such impediment to initiate a new process without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations.

The pendency at the end of the Government: 

  • 45 names recommended from the High Courts pending with the Government for more than six months reached the Collegium in the last couple of weeks.
  • 10 recommendations from the list of old proposals in pipeline pending with the Government of India for considerable period of time.

“On the last date of hearing, the learned Attorney General had made a statement that a decision would be taken in this behalf within the next three months.”

  • 6 names reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium a second time, are also awaiting appointment.

While the Attorney General KK Venugopal did not differ with the requirement of time bound schedule for filling the vacancies at every stage, he emphasised that the trigger for filling up of the vacancies is the recommendations made by the Chief Justices of the High Courts.

However, once the recommendations are made, there are two stages at which the matter rests with the Government – the first when the Ministry processes the names; and the second post the Collegium of the Supreme Court taking a call in recommending such of the names as are approved by the Collegium.

Insofar as the Judiciary is concerned, the second stage after the recommendations are made by the Collegium of the High Courts is the time period taken by the Collegium of the Supreme Court in consulting the consultee Judge(s) to take a call on those names.

As per the Memorandum of Procedure finalised by the Supreme Court Collegium on 10.3.2017:

  1. States may take not more than six weeks to send their views.
  2. The Central Government can presume no objection of the State Government, if their views are not received within six weeks.
  3. No timeline prescribed for the Central Government to forward recommendations.
  4. The Chief Justice of India to send recommendations/advise to the Law Minister within four weeks.
  5. The Law Minister to put up the proposal to the Prime Minister within three weeks for advise of the President.

In order to facilitate timely appointment, the Court advised to follow the following timelines in addition to the aforesaid:

i. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) should submit its report/inputs within 4 to 6 weeks from the date of recommendation of the High Court Collegium, to the Central Government.

ii. It would be desirable that the Central Government forward the file(s)/recommendations to the Supreme Court within 8 to 12 weeks from the date of receipt of views from the State Government and the report/input from the IB.

iii. It would be for the Government to thereafter proceed to make the appointment immediately on the aforesaid consideration and undoubtedly if Government has any reservations on suitability or in public interest, within the same period of time it may be sent back to the Supreme Court Collegium with the specific reasons for reservation recorded.

iv. If the Supreme Court Collegium after consideration of the aforesaid inputs still reiterates the recommendation(s) unanimously, such appointment should be processed and appointment should be made within 3 to 4 weeks.

[PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 332, order dated 20.04.2021]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following ten Judges to be the Permanent Judges of the Allahabad High Court:

  • Ali Zamin
  • Vipin Chandra Dixit
  • Shekhar Kumar Yadav
  • Ravi Nath Tilhari
  • Deepak Verma
  • Gautam Chowdhary
  • Shamim Ahmed
  • Dinesh Pathak
  • Manish Kumar
  • Samit Gopal

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 23-03-2021]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case relating to the appointments to the post of Police Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., has upheld State Government’s decision of shifting of candidates, who were earlier selected against posts meant for reserved categories, to the open category.

The Court has held,

“With the availability of 3295 additional posts, in the re-working exercise, if the candidates who were already selected against reserved posts were entitled to be considered against open category posts, that exercise cannot be termed as illegal or invalid on any count. These 3295 posts were part of the same selection process initiated in 2013 for filling up 41610 posts and as such the adjustment was rightly done by the State.”

In the present case,

  • By issuing an advertisement on 20.06.2013, selection process was undertaken to fill up 41610 posts of Police Constables [U.P. Civil Police/Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC)/Fireman]. The petitioners had participated in the selection process as candidates of General Category.
  • After the requisite examinations, results were declared on 16.07.2015, in which 38315 candidates were successful. Thus, as on that date, there were vacancies which were not filled as no suitable candidates were available. About 2312 vacancies had remained unfilled and additionally, there were 982 vacancies arising out of causes such as nonreporting of the selected candidates.
  • In the circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1968 issued following directions:

“It is accepted by the learned counsel for the State that the State did not undertake any process of selection in respect of those 2312 vacancies. In the circumstances it is directed:

    1. A) The State shall within a month from today complete the entire process of selection in respect of 2312 vacancies strictly in accordance with law.
    2. B) The State shall follow the principle of reservation while filling up these 2312 vacancies.
    3. C) While filling up these vacancies, the State shall adhere to the minimum required qualifying marks as devised during the process of selection but subject to this, the State shall consider all eligible candidates and go strictly in order of merit.
    4. D) The State shall before the next date of hearing, shall file a list of all the selected candidates.

It is also accepted that apart from these 2312 vacancies, there are still 982 vacancies to be filled up in the original selection.”

  • Consequently, selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the aforementioned direction and hence, certain candidates coming from ‘Reserved Categories’, who were initially selected against Reserved Categories’ seats, were now shown against ‘Open Category’ in the list published on 11.11.2019.

According to the petitioners in the present case, this shifting prejudiced the chances of ‘Open Category’ candidates and that there should not have been any adjustment of the candidates who were already selected in ‘Reserved Categories’ and all those seats should have been made available to the ‘Open Category’.

In response, the State gave details about the last selected candidates in various categories and has stated that the last selected person in ‘General Male Category’ was one Pawan Singh (having secured 313.616 marks). Except the petitioners at serial Nos. 22 and 24, who had secured 313.616 marks, none of the 48 petitioners had secured marks in excess of 313.616. It was stated that since large number of candidates had secured exactly 313.616 marks, tiebreaker principle was adopted in which these two petitioners got eliminated.

Upholding the selection process, the Court held that the selection in respect of 3295 posts was undertaken in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1968 and the State Government and its functionaries were obliged to go strictly in order of merit and apply the principle of reservation.

[Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 223, decided on 16.03.2021]


*Judgment by: Justice UU Lalit

Know Thy Judge| Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Appearances before the Court by:

For petitioners: Senior Advocate P. S. Patwalia

For State: Additional Advocate General Vinod Diwakar,

For Intervenors: Senior Advocates B. P. Patil and Vinay Navare

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where OBC female category candidates had challenged the appointment of General category female candidates, who had secured lower marks, as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit*, S. Ravindra Bhat** and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has directed that all candidates coming from ‘OBC Female Category’ who had secured more marks than 274.8928, i.e. the marks secured by the last candidate appointed in ‘General Category–Female’ must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.

However, the employment of General Category Females with cut off at 274.8928 are not to be affected in any manner merely because of this judgment.

Background

Pursuant to Supreme Court’s order dated 24.07.2019, selection to the 3295 posts in accordance with merit and consistent with reservation policy of the Government was undertaken by the Uttar Pradesh Government. According to the results declared on 11.11.2019, 188 posts in ‘General Female Category’ were filled up. While doing so, the claim of ‘OBC Female Candidates’ was not considered or taken into account.

The last candidate appointed in the category of ‘General Female’ had secured 274.8298 marks. 21 OBC applicants who secured marks greater than the candidate with 274.8298 challenged the action on part of the State Government in refusing to consider the claim of ‘OBC Female Category’ candidates in respect of ‘General Female Category’ seats.

Lalit, J, for himself and Bhat and Roy, JJ

The Court discussed the views of various High Courts and categorised them as “first view” and the “second view”. The High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat have adopted the “first view” while dealing with horizontal reservation whereas the High Court of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh have taken a contrary view i.e. the “second view”.

First view

Candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in “Open or General Category”. If such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories for vertical reservation that they belong.

Second view

According to the second view, different principles must be adopted at two stages; in that:-.

(I) At the initial stage when the “Open or General Category” seats are to be filled, the claim of all reserved category candidates based on merit must be considered and if any candidates from such reserved categories, on their own merit, are entitled to be selected against Open or General Category seats, such placement of the reserved category candidate is not to affect in any manner the quota reserved for such categories in vertical reservation.

(II) However, when it comes to adjustment at the stage of horizontal reservation, even if, such reserved category candidates are entitled, on merit, to be considered and accommodated against Open or General Seats, at that stage the candidates from any reserved category can be adjusted only and only if there is scope for their adjustment in their own vertical column of reservation.

Such exercise would be premised on following postulates: – (A) After the initial allocation of Open General Category seats is completed, the claim or right of reserved category candidates to be admitted in Open General Category seats on the basis of their own merit stands exhausted and they can only be considered against their respective column of vertical reservation. (B) If there be any resultant adjustment on account of horizontal reservation in Open General Category, only those candidates who are not in any of the categories for whom vertical reservations is provided, alone are to be considered. (C) In other words, at the stage of horizontal reservation, Open General Category is to be construed as category meant for candidates other than those coming from any of the categories for whom vertical reservation is provided.

Analysis of both the views

The second view, based on adoption of a different principle at the stage of horizontal reservation as against one accepted to be a settled principle for vertical reservation, may lead to situations where a less meritorious candidate, not belonging to any of the reserved categories, may get selected in preference to a more meritorious candidate coming from a reserved category as has happened in the present matter.

Admittedly, the last selected candidates in Open General female category while making adjustment of horizontal reservation had secured lesser marks than the Applicants. The claim of the Applicants was disregarded on the ground that they could claim only and only if there was a vacancy or chance for them to be accommodated in their respective column of vertical reservation.

The Court further noticed that if the consideration for accommodation at horizontal reservation stage is only with regard to the concerned vertical reservation or social reservation category, the candidates belonging to that category alone must be considered. For example, if horizontal reservation is to be applied with regard to any of the categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, only those candidates answering that description alone can be considered at the stage of horizontal reservation.

“But it is completely different thing to say that if at the stage of horizontal reservation, accommodation is to be considered against Open/General seats, the candidates coming from any of the reserved categories who are more meritorious must be side-lined.”

Noticing that the second view is neither based on any authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court nor does it lead to a situation where the merit is given precedence, the Court said that subject to any permissible reservations i.e. either Social (Vertical) or Special (Horizontal), opportunities to public employment and selection of candidates must purely be based on merit.

“Any selection which results in candidates getting selected against Open/General category with less merit than the other available candidates will certainly be opposed to principles of equality. There can be special dispensation when it comes to candidates being considered against seats or quota meant for reserved categories and in theory it is possible that a more meritorious candidate coming from Open/General category may not get selected. But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court.”

Hence, rejecting the second view, the Court held that it will not only lead to irrational results where more meritorious candidates may possibly get sidelined as indicated above but will, of necessity, result in acceptance of a postulate that Open/General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories.

Bhat, J in his concurring opinion

“Reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the state’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.”

[Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1034, decided on 18.12.2020]


*Justice UU Lalit has penned this judgment. Read more about him here.

** Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has penned a concurrent opinion. Read more about him here

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. held that the candidates left out of merit list has no right to claim the same benefit which was provided to some other candidates on basis of some erroneous concession granted by the State. The Court restated that negative equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate further illegality.

Chequered history

The Director-General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, invited applications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Executive) to be filled by selection in conformity of J&K Police (Executive) Rules. Notably, the Rules do not provide that the merit list of the candidates is to be prepared separately for the Province of Jammu and the Province of Kashmir. The DGP, however, under his own assumption published the merit list separately province-wise.

Round 1

The unsuccessful candidates who could not make it to the merit list challenged the list contending that the DGP ought to have prepared a single select list for the entire State of J&K as the post of Sub-Inspector is a State cadre post.

The unsuccessful candidates succeeded and the DGP ultimately published a revised State-wise merit list by which the appointment of 47 candidates out of the total candidates who were appointed under the original select list was cancelled.

Round 2

The 47 candidates whose appointment got cancelled now challenged the revised merit list. Apart from these 47 candidates, 22 more candidates filed impleadment applications. The matter reached the Supreme Court. On 10-5-2007, the Supreme Court, without examining the inter se dispute of the litigation parties, noted the concession made by the Attorney General for the State that the 47 candidates who were likely to lose their jobs, as well as the other 22 candidates, will be accommodated on the post of Sub-Inspector.

The appointments so stated were actually made. Notably, however, the 22 candidates now appointed were much lower in the revised merit list and their placement in the order of merit was not brought to the notice of Supreme Court and that gave rise to further litigation.

Round 3

Some of the left out candidates who were higher in the merit list qua the 22 candidates now appointed, filed writ petitions contending that they were denied their legitimate right of fair consideration being higher in the revised merit list vis­a­vis these 22 candidates who were indisputedly less meritorious but were still appointed. It was contended that this action of the State is in violation of the statutory rules and is also a denial of equal opportunity in seeking appointment on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution.

These writ petitioners succeeded initially before the Single Judge Bench of the J&K High Court, but the order of the Single Judge was reversed by the Division Bench. Aggrieved, these writ petitioners filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.  

Analysis and decision

State-bound to follow Rules of Recruitment

Relying on the decisions in State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Arup Das v. State of Assam, (2012) 5 SCC 559, the Court restated the settled principle of service jurisprudence that the State is bound to follow the rules of recruitment to various services under the State or to a class of posts under the State and the selection of the candidates is to be made as per the scheme of recruitment rules and appointments shall be made accordingly. At the same time, all the efforts shall be made for strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the recruitment rules. On the contrary, if any appointments are made bypassing the recruitment procedure known to law, it will result in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Status of appointments made for exceptional reasons

The Court noted that in the present matter, the appointment of the 22 candidates (whose appointment has given rise to the present round of litigation) was an exceptional case, where the appointment was made on a concession granted by the State for giving a quietus to the long drawn litigation.

It was then observed that it is true that the appointments in the ordinary course are to be made strictly in the order of merit in terms of the select list prepared by the competent authority as contemplated under the relevant statutory recruitment rules and any appointment in contravention indeed is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. But there is a proviso to this rule in instances where appointments are made deviating from the merit list drawn by the competent authority in exceptional cases as being reflected in the instant case where there was ongoing litigation and the subsequent selection was also made to give quietus to the ongoing litigation. It was held that such appointment though is irregular, but it cannot be held to be illegal as claimed by the appellants.

Error not to become foundation for perpetuating illegality

The Court was of the opinion that the appellant cannot be extended the same benefit. Reliance was placed on Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal, (2010) 2 SCC 422 wherein it was observed that if something is being done or acted upon erroneously, that cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be made the basis of further appointment and erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. Reference was also made to Arup Das v. State of Assam, (2012) 4 SCC 559.

It was held that though appointments of 22 candidates made by the State are irregular appointments and not in conformity to the recruitment rules, still what was being prayed by the appellants if is accepted, that will perpetuate the illegality which has been committed by the State and negative equality cannot be claimed to perpetuate further illegality.

No disturbance to long-standing position

The Court noted that that by now, the 22 candidates against whom the lis was raised by the present appellants, had completed almost more than 12 years of service and thus having rich experience in the field. It was also observed that the concession given by the Advocate General for the State in favour of these candidates, appeared bonafide to give quietus to the ongoing litigation pending in Courts for sufficiently long time.

In such view, the Court was not inclined to disturb the appointment of these 22 candidates which had been questioned by the appellants in the present appeals. Reliance was placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 and Buddhi Nath Chaudhary v. Abahi Kumar, (2001) 3 SCC 328.

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the present appeals. [Pankjeshwar Sharma v. State of J&K, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 984, decided on 3-12-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case relating to examinations conducted in 2017 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for filling up the posts of Senior Teachers where the Rajasthan High Court had re-evaluated the answers and had come to conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao*, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ held that the division bench of the High Court committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 5 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. The Court, however, did not set aside the judgment as it did not want to upset the appointments of 5 out of 21 appellants-therein who have already been appointed.

Background

  • Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) conducted written examinations on 01.05.2017 and 02.07.2017 in General Knowledge and Social Science respectively for selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers in Social Science, Sanskrit, Hindi, English and Mathematics.
  • RPSC issued the 1st Answer Key on 06.02.2018 and declared the results.
  • On 25.04.2018, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench referred 3 questions in the 1st Answer Key to be reconsidered by an Expert Committee. Shortly thereafter, a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench referred another 8 questions for reconsideration by an Expert Committee on 05.05.2018.
  • An Expert Committee constituted by the RPSC revised the Key Answers for 2 questions in Social Science and 1 question in General Knowledge. The 2nd Answer Key was issued pursuant thereto, and the Merit List was also revised on 17.09.2018.
  • The 2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised Select List which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12.03.2019.
  • The High Court examined the correctness of the disputed questions by itself and came to a conclusion that the answers to 5 questions were wrong. After being informed that the results have been announced and the selection process was completed, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 directed revision of the Select List and give benefit of the revision only to the Appellants before the Court.
  • Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the revised Select List ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contended that the Wait List also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key.

Analysis

The Court noticed that though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, the Supreme Court has, through various judgments, deprecated the practice of reevaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters.

“It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates.”

Hence, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019.

Stating that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters, the Court said,

“In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.”

The Court, despite finding the approach of the High Court erroneous, did not set aside the judgment as it did not want to upset the appointments of 5 out of 21 appellants-therein who have already been appointed. It hence, upheld the Select List dated 21.05.2019 and the Wait List dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key.

Taking note of the statement filed by the RPSC that there are vacancies existing which can be utilized for appointing the Appellants, the Court left it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates and directed the completion of the selection process within a period of 8 weeks from the date of decision.

[Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 993, decided on 07.12.2020]


*Justice L. Nageswara Rao has penned this judgment 

For appellants: Advocates Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Rakesh Karela and Ranbir Yadav

For State: Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi

Case BriefsSupreme Court

[Note: This report is a detailed analysis of Supreme Court’s judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India[1]. To read the guidelines and directions issued by the Court, click here.]

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao*, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat has issued extensive directions in relating to selection, appointment, tenure, conditions of service, etc. relating to various tribunals, 19 in number, thereby calling for certain modifications to the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities [Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members] Rules, 2020

The Supreme Court was once again, within the span of a year, called upon to decide the issue at hand. Last year, the Constitution Bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1 had held that the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, as a whole was ultra vires.

“That the judicial system and this Court in particular has to live these déjà vu moments, time and again (exemplified by no less than four constitution bench judgments) in the last 8 years, speaks profound volumes about the constancy of other branches of governance, in their insistence regarding these issues.”

Here is the explainer on the directions issued by the Court:

NATIONAL TRIBUNALS COMMISSION

“We have noticed a disturbing trend of the Government not implementing the directions issued by this Court. To ensure that the Tribunals should not function as another department under the control of the executive, repeated directions have been issued which have gone unheeded forcing the Petitioner to approach this Court time and again. It is high time that we put an end to this practice.”

Noticing that the Tribunals are not free from the Executive control and that they are not perceived to be independent judicial bodies, the Court said that there was an imperative need to ensure that the Tribunals discharge the judicial functions without any interference of the Executive whether directly or indirectly.

Hence,

“An independent body headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court supervising the appointments and the functioning of the Tribunals apart from being in control of any disciplinary proceedings against the Members would not only improve the functioning of the Tribunals but would also be in accordance with the principles of judicial independence.”

To stop the dependence of the Tribunals on their parent Departments for routing their requirements and to ensure speedy administrative decision making, as an interregnum measure, it was hence directed that there should be a separate “tribunals wing” established in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to take up, deal with and finalize requirements of all the Tribunals till the National Tribunals Commission is established.

Read the directions here

SEARCH-CUM-SELECTION COMMITTEE

After it was brought to Court’s notice that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committees as per 2020 Rules does not ensure judicial dominance, the Court made the following directions:

  • a casting vote will be given to the Chief Justice of India or his nominee as the Chairperson of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
  • normally the Chairperson of the Tribunal would be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court. However, there are certain Tribunals in which the Chairperson may not be a judicial member. In such Tribunals, the Search-cum-Selection Committee should have a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India in place of the Chairperson of the Tribunal.
  • the 2020 Rules would be amended to reflect that whenever the re-appointment of the Chairman or Chairperson or President of a Tribunal is considered by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal shall be replaced by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
  • Secretary to the sponsoring or parent Department shall serve as the Member-Secretary/Convener to the Search-cum-Selection Committee and shall function in the Search-cum-Selection Committee without a vote.
  • Rule 4 (2) of the Rules that postulates that a panel of two or three persons shall be recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee from which the appointments to the posts of Chairperson or members of the Tribunal shall be made by the Central Government, shall be amended and till so amended, that it be read as empowering the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend the name of only one person for each post. Taking note of the requirement of the reports of the selected candidates from the Intelligence Bureau, another suitable person can be selected by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and placed in the waiting list.

Read the directions here

TERM OF OFFICE

At present Rule 9(1) permits a Chairman, Chairperson or President of the Tribunal to continue till 70 years which is in conformity with Parliamentary mandate in Section 184 of the Finance Act. However, Rule 9(2) provides that Vice Chairman and other members shall hold office till they attain 65 years.

Accepting Amicus Curiae’s submission that under the 2020 Rules, the Vice Chairman, Vice-Chairperson or Vice-President or members in almost all the Tribunals will have only a short tenure of less than three years if the maximum age is 65 years, the Court directed the Government to amend Rule 9 (1) of the 2020 Rules by making the term of Chairman, Chairperson or President as five years or till they attain 70 years, whichever is earlier and other members dealt with in Rule 9(2) as five years or till they attain 67 years, whichever is earlier.

Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 provides for reappointment of Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and members of the Tribunals on completion of their tenure. There is no mention of reappointment in the 2020 Rules. Hence, Reappointment for at least one term shall be provided to the persons who are appointed to the Tribunals at a young age by giving preference to the service rendered by them.

Read the directions here

HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE

Noticing that lack of housing in Delhi has been one of the reasons for retired Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to not accept appointments to Tribunals, the Court directed the Government of India to make serious efforts to provide suitable housing to the Chairperson and the members of the Tribunals and in case providing housing is not possible, to enhance the house rent allowance to Rs.1,25,000/- for members of Tribunals and Rs.1,50,000/- for the Chairman or Chairperson or President and Vice Chairman or Vice Chairperson or Vice President of Tribunals.

“… an option should be given to the Chairperson and the members of the Tribunals to either apply for housing accommodation to be provided by the Government of India as per the existing rules or to accept the enhanced house rent allowance. This direction shall be effective from 01.01.2021.”

Read the directions here

ADVOCATES AS JUDICIAL MEMBERS

While the Attorney General suggested that an advocate who has 25 years of experience should be considered for appointment as a Judicial member, the Amicus Curiae suggested that it should be 15 years.

Considering both the suggestions, the Court said,

“As the qualification for an advocate of a High Court for appointment as a Judge of a High Court is only 10 years, we are of the opinion that the experience at the bar should be on the same lines for being considered for appointment as a judicial member of a Tribunal.”

However, it is left open to the Search-cum-Selection Committee to take into account in the experience of the Advocates at the bar and the specialization of the Advocates in the relevant branch of law while considering them for appointment as judicial members.

Read the directions here

ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF INDIAN LEGAL SERVICE

The Court directed that the members of Indian Legal Service shall be entitled to be considered for appointment as a judicial member subject to their fulfilling the other criteria which advocates are subjected to. In addition, the nature of work done by the members of the Indian Legal Service and their specialization in the relevant branches of law shall be considered by the Search-cum-Selection Committee while evaluating their candidature.

Read the directions here

IMPORTANCE OF APPOINTMENT OF COMPETENT AND YOUNG LAWYERS AND TECHNICAL MEMBERS

Tribunals discharge a judicial role, and with respect to matters entrusted to them, the jurisdiction of civil courts is usually barred. Therefore, wherever legal expertise in the particular domain is implicated, it would be natural that advocates with experience in the same, or ancillary field would provide the “catchment” for consideration for membership. This is also the case with selection of technical members, who would have expertise in the scientific or technical, or wherever required, policy background.

Younger advocates who are around 45 years old bring in fresh perspectives. Many states induct lawyers just after 7 years of practice directly as District Judges.

“If the justice delivery system by tribunals is to be independent and vibrant, absorbing technological changes and rapid advances, it is essential that those practitioners with a certain vitality, energy and enthusiasm are inducted.”

25 years of practice even with a five-year degree holder, would mean that the minimum age of induction would be 48 years: it may be more, given the time taken to process recommendations. Therefore, a tenure without assured re-engagements would not be feasible. A younger lawyer, who may not be suitable to continue after one tenure (or is reluctant to continue), can still return, to the bar, than an older one, who may not be able to piece her life together again.

Read the directions here

REMOVAL OF MEMBERS

Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules provides the procedure for inquiry of misbehavior or incapacity of a member. According to the said Rule, the preliminary scrutiny of the complaint is done by the Central Government. If the Central Government finds that there are reasonable grounds for conducting an inquiry into the allegations made against a member in the complaint, it shall make a reference to the Search-cum-Selection Committee which shall conduct an inquiry and submit the report to the Central Government.

However, Amicus Curiae argued that there is no clarity in the Rules as to whether the reports submitted by the Search-cum-Selection Committee are binding on the Central Government. The Attorney General submitted that the preliminary scrutiny done by the Central Government, according to Rule 8 (1) is only for the purpose of weeding out frivolous complaints and that the recommendations made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be implemented by the Central Government. The Court accepted the submissions of the learned Attorney General.

Read the directions here

TIME LIMIT FOR APPOINTMENT

“The very reason for constituting Tribunals is to supplement the functions of the High Courts and the other Courts and to ensure that the consumer of justice gets speedy redressal to his grievances. This would be defeated if the Tribunals do not function effectively.”

It was brought to Court’s notice that there are a large number of unfilled vacancies hampering the progress of the functioning of the Tribunals. The pendency of cases in the Tribunals is increasing mainly due to the lack of personnel in the Tribunals which is due to the delay in filling up the vacancies as and when they arise due to the retirement of the members.

The Court, hence, directed that the Government of India shall make the appointments to the Tribunals within three months after the Search-cum-Selection Committee completes the selection and makes its recommendations.

Read the directions here

RETROSPECTIVITY OF THE 2020 RULES

The Court rejected the submission of learned Attorney General that the 2020 Rules which replaced the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 shall come into force with effect from 26.05.2017 which was the appointed day in accordance with the 2017 Rules and said,

“It is true that the 2017 Rules were brought into force from 26.05.2017 and Section 183 of the Finance Act provides for any appointment made after the appointed day shall be in accordance with the Rules made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017. 2017 Rules which have come into force with effect from 26.05.2017 in accordance with Section 183 have been struck down by this Court. The 2020 Rules which came into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. 12.02.2020, cannot be given retrospective effect.”

Further, the intention of Government of India to make the 2020 Rules prospective is very clear from the notification dated 12.02.2020. In any event, subordinate legislation cannot be given retrospective effect unless the parent statute specifically provides for the same.

The Court, however, clarified that all appointments made prior to the 2020 Rules which came into force on 12.02.2020 shall be governed by the parent Acts and Rules. Any appointment made after the 2020 Rules have come into force shall be in accordance with the 2020 Rules subject to the modifications directed in this judgment.

Read the directions here

In the petition that was filed by Madras Bar Association, the Court directed the Government to strictly adhere to the directions and not force the Petitioner-Madras Bar Association, which has been relentless in its efforts to ensure judicial independence of the Tribunals, to knock the doors of this Court again.

[Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 962, decided on 27.11.2020]


*Justice L. Nageswara Rao has penned this judgment.

[1] Writ Petition (C) No.804 of 2020, decided on 27.11.2020

Counsels heard:

Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, amicus curiae

Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal,

Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh and S.V. Raju,

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi, C.A. Sundaram, Vikas Singh,. Anitha Shenoy, R. Balasubramanium, A.S. Chandhiok, Virender Ganda, M.S. Ganesh, Sidharth Luthra, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Guru Krishnakumar, Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Gautam Misra, P.S. Narasimha.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao*, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat has issued extensive directions in relating to selection, appointment, tenure, conditions of service, etc. relating to various tribunals, 19 in number, thereby calling for certain modifications to the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities [Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members] Rules, 2020.

While the bench has upheld the validity of Tribunal Rules, 2020, here are the modifications and directions issued by the Court:

(i) The Union of India shall constitute a National Tribunals Commission which shall act as an independent body to supervise the appointments and functioning of Tribunals, as well as to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of Tribunals and to take care of administrative and infrastructural needs of the Tribunals, in an appropriate manner.

Till the National Tribunals Commission is constituted, a separate wing in the Ministry of Finance, Government of India shall be established to cater to the requirements of the Tribunals.

(ii) Instead of the four-member Search-cum-Selection Committees comprising of the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, outgoing or sitting Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal and two Secretaries to the Government of India, the Search-cum-Selection Committees should comprise of the following members:

(a) The Chief Justice of India or his nominee—Chairperson (with a casting vote).

(b) The outgoing Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal (or) the sitting Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal in case of appointment of other members of the Tribunal (or) a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court in case the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is not a Judicial member or if the Chairman or Chairperson or President of the Tribunal is seeking re-appointment—member;

(c) Secretary to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India—member;

(d) Secretary to the Government of India from a department other than the parent or sponsoring department, nominated by the Cabinet Secretary—member;

(e) Secretary to the sponsoring or parent Ministry or Department—Member Secretary/Convener (without a vote).

Till amendments are carried out, the 2020 Rules shall be read in the manner indicated.

(iii) Rule 4(2) of the 2020 Rules shall be amended to provide that the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall recommend the name of one person for appointment to each post instead of a panel of two or three persons for appointment to each post. Another name may be recommended to be included in the waiting list.

(iv) The Chairpersons, Vice-Chairpersons and the members of the Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five years and shall be eligible for reappointment. Rule 9(2) of the 2020 Rules shall be amended to provide that the Vice-Chairman, Vice-Chairperson and Vice President and other members shall hold office till they attain the age of sixty-seven years.

(v) The Union of India shall make serious efforts to provide suitable housing to the Chairman or Chairperson or President and other members of the Tribunals. If providing housing is not possible, the Chairman or Chairperson or President and Vice-Chairman, Vice-Chairperson, Vice President of the Tribunals shall be paid Rs. 1,50,000/- per month as house rent allowance and Rs. 1,25,000/- per month for other members of the Tribunals from 01.01.2021.

(vi) Advocates with an experience of at least 10 years should be eligible for appointment as judicial members in the Tribunals. The experience of the Advocate at the bar and their specialization in the relevant branches of law is to be considered. They shall be entitled for reappointment for at least one term by giving preference to the service rendered by them for the Tribunals.

(vii) The members of the Indian Legal Service shall be eligible for appointment as judicial members in the Tribunals, provided that they fulfil the criteria applicable to advocates subject to suitability to be assessed by the Search-cum-Selection Committee on the basis of their experience and knowledge in the specialized branch of law.

(viii) Rule 8 of the 2020 Rules shall be amended to reflect that the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee in matters of disciplinary actions shall be final and shall be implemented by the Central Government.

(ix) The Union of India shall make appointments to Tribunals within three months from the date on which the Search-cum-Selection Committee completes the selection process and makes its recommendations.

(x) The 2020 Rules shall have prospective effect and will be applicable from 12.02.2020, as per Rule 1(2) of the 2020 Rules.

(xi) Appointments made prior to the 2017 Rules are governed by the parent Acts and Rules which established the concerned Tribunals. Any appointments that were made after the 2020 Rules came into force i.e. on or after 12.02.2020 shall be governed by the 2020 Rules subject to the modifications as directed in this judgment.

(xii) Appointments made under the 2020 Rules till the date of this judgment, shall not be considered invalid, insofar as they conformed to the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committees in terms of the 2020 Rules, as they stood before the modifications directed in this judgment. They are, in other words, saved and shall not be questioned.

(xiii) In case the Search-cum-Selection Committees have made recommendations after conducting selections in accordance with the 2020 Rules, appointments shall be made within three months from today and shall not be subject matter of challenge on the ground that they are not in accord with this judgment.

(xiv) The terms and conditions relating to salary, benefits, allowances, house rent allowance etc. shall be in accordance with the terms indicated in and directed by this judgment.

(xv) The Chairpersons, Vice Chairpersons and members of the Tribunals appointed prior to 12.02.2020 shall be governed by the parent statutes and Rules as per which they were appointed. The 2020 Rules shall be applicable with the modifications as directed to those who were appointed after 12.02.2020.

The Court has clarified that all appointments made prior to the 2020 Rules which came into force on 12.02.2020 shall be governed by the parent Acts and Rules. Any appointment made after the 2020 Rules have come into force shall be in accordance with the 2020 Rules subject to the modifications as directed.

In the petition that was filed by Madras Bar Association, the Court directed the Government to strictly adhere to the directions given above and not force the Petitioner-Madras Bar Association, which has been relentless in its efforts to ensure judicial independence of the Tribunals, to knock the doors of this Court again.

[Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 962, decided on 27.11.2020]


*Justice L. Nageswara Rao has penned this judgment 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case relating to Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) appointments*, where only 28 people have been recruited against a total of 75 posts, the bench of SK Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ has directed that as a sample, the papers in the two subjects i.e. Criminal Law and Punjabi, of the first 10 candidates, who did not clear the examination, be sent for re-checking.

The Court further directed that since the problem relates to these two subjects, the papers of the first 10 candidates who failed to obtain the minimum marks in those subjects, also be sent for re-checking. There may, however, be overlapping in this scenario.

It said,

“We propose to pass an order to satisfy our judicial conscious in the given scenario where only 28 people have been recruited in pursuance to an examination process where 75 vacancies existed.”

The Criminal Law papers be sent to Justice A.K. Sikri, former Supreme Court judge and Punjabi papers to Justice Surinder Singh Saron, former Acting Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court. The papers are to be sent within 2 weeks.

The Court said that the aforesaid process and the marks that will be assigned will give an impression of the broad trend whether the overall marking has been strict beyond expected levels or the assessment is fine and whether there is a requirement of re-marking of all papers once again in these two subjects excluding of course those people who already stand recruited. The Court will also consider whether in such a scenario any other appropriate action like grant of grace marks could meet the ends of justice.

The Court asked the Punjab and Haryana High Court to take necessary steps to send the requisite papers and compute the result and submit it to the Court along with previous marks.

The matter has been listed for further directions on 17.12.2020.

[Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal v. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 902, order dated 03.11.2020]


*Ed. Note: The order does not specify the name of the examination but merely mentions “an examination process”. The inference that the matter deals with the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) appointments has been drawn from the information available in the order.

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Justices (1) Shriram Madhusudan Modak, (2) Jamadar Nijamoddin Jahiroddin, (3) Vinay Gajanan Joshi, and (4) Avachat Rajendra Govind, Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court, to be the Permanent Judges of the Bombay High Court.

Read the notification, here: NOTIFICATION


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 09-09-2020]