Appointment

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Shri Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, presently District and Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkarduma Courts, Delhi to the post of Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs, on contract basis, as per usual terms and conditions applicable to officers appointed as Secretary to the Government of India on contract basis, from the date of his assumption of charge of the post upto 30-03-2023 i.e. till his attaining the age of 60 years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

Appointments Committee of the Cabinet

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

[Notification dt. 14-10-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court:

“The presence of lady members in the police force, considering the crime against women, is a prime need of the hour. Thus we feel that every endeavor should be made to ensure that there is higher representation of women in the police services.”

Granting relief to women candidates who could not appear for the physical test during the selection process for Bihar Police held in 2018 because of their pregnancy, the Court has directed the Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission to conduct a fresh test for such applicants. The bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Krishna Murari, JJ has asked the Commission to conduct the physical test of the candidates and adjust them against vacancies notified this year. The Court said,

“We are of the view that not only the appellant but all such candidates who sought deferment on account of pregnancy alone should be called for PET.”

It was brought to the Court’s notice that the total number of ladies who claimed extension of PET on the basis of pregnancy or injuries is stated to be 78 in all, out of which 73 are on account of pregnancy. Noticing that it is on the prodding of the Supreme Court that these examinations were held, the Court said that had recruitments taken place in accordance with certain pre-defined schedules, intervention of this court would not have been called for as candidates would have known as to when recruitment would take place and would have to plan their life accordingly. The Court, hence, held that

“it is a fit case where the benefit should be made available to the candidates who may be in the advance stage of pregnancy at the relevant stage of time but have otherwise qualified the test.”

The Court, hence, directed that out of the candidates so called those who qualify the PET and are otherwise found in the merit for appointment alone would be eligible to be considered for appointment, subject to verification of the factum of pregnancy. Such process should be completed within a period of two months. All such people will, however, take merit at the bottom of the current list as it is the vacancies which are now advertised against which the candidates are being adjusted.

The bench, however, clarified that the aforesaid direction was a one-time measure as now the examinations are being held periodically. It, said,

“We are not inclined to open a flood gate effecting the sanctity of the future examination.”

Case Timeline

  • Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission issued advertisement dated 16th September, 2017 to fill the vacancies for the post of Police Sub Inspector in the State of Bihar.
  • Preliminary examination was conducted on 11th March, 2018
  • Main examination was conducted on 22nd July, 2018.
  • Physical Evaluation Test (PET) which was scheduled for 25th September, 2018.
  • The appellant being in advance stage of pregnancy where the delivery was expected in the month of October, 2018 sought an extension of PET for three to six months on account of being completely on bed rest as advised by the doctor.
  • There was no response to this representation and the appellant thus filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court which was allowed by order dated 3rd October, 2018, directing the Commission to fix any date after two months after informing her of the date of the PET.
  • The Division Bench overturned this decision on 1st March, 2019.

[Khushbu Sharma v. Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1323, order dated 27.09.2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J., dismissed a petition after considering the facts of the case and found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The factual matrix of the instant case is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of Union Bank of India and he died in harness on 23-04-2002. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner had already put in more than five years of service in the Bank and was over 35 years old. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he laid his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 22-11-2006. The petitioner has filed petitions for a compassionate appointment two times and both were rejected, first time, under the policy of 2003 and the second time under the policy of 2007. 

The Court held that in the light of the Judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1187, it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in the light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of the application. The Court observed that the above-mentioned aspect is an academic issue because both the policies, i.e. which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the first time and the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, do not cover the case of the petitioner. As per the policy of 2003, which was in force at the time of consideration of the application for the first time, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment because he had laid his claim after the expiry of more than four years, whereas as per the policy which was in force on the date of consideration i.e. policy of 2007, of his application for the second time, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had already completed more than five years of service in the Bank and was above 30 years. 

In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any of the policies. [Deepak Sharma v. Union Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 2664, decided on 04-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Order of appointment of Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court

President appoints Justice Mohammad Rafiq, senior-most Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat relinquishes the charge as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court consequent upon his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 20-09-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following Four Judges of the High Courts as Judges of the Supreme Court of India:

  • Shri Justice Krishna Murari, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
  • Shri Justice Shripathi Ravindra Bhat, Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court
  • Shri Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court

  • Shri Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court

    Ministry of Law and Justice

    [Notification dt. 18-09-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President is pleased to appoint Smt. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, senior-most Judge of the Sikkim High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court with effect from 17th September, 2019 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 13-09-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

S.O. 3121(E)— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 8 read with sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Central Government, vide office order No. Comp-05/9/2018- Comp-MCA dated the 11th July, 2019, appointed Shri Bhagwant Singh Bishnoi (IFS:1983) as Member of the Competition Commission of India, with effect from the 17th July, 2019 (forenoon) for a period of five years, or till he attains the age of 65 years, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

2. The terms and conditions of his service shall be governed by the Competition Commission of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and other Members) Rules, 2003.

Ministry of Corporate Affairs

[F. No. 05/9/2018-Comp-MCA]

[Notification dt. 28-08-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint the following:

(i) Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta,

(ii) Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma and

(iii) Justice Arvind Singh Chandel,

Additional Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court, to be Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 28-08-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Chief Justice of Canada, the Rt. Hon. Richard Wagner, welcomes the appointment of Mr Justice Nicholas Kasirer to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Justice Kasirer is a distinguished judge who is widely respected for both his profound knowledge of the law and collegial manner on the bench,” said the Chief Justice. “As a former law professor and experienced member of the Québec Court of Appeal, I am confident that Justice Kasirer will make a significant contribution as a member of the Court.  My colleagues and I look forward to serving Canadians alongside him.”

Justice Kasirer’s appointment is effective September 16, 2019. He will be sworn in as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in a private ceremony on that date.

Supreme Court of Canada

[News Release dt. 07-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court:  Arun Bhansali, J. disposed of a petition challenging the order of rejection of her candidature for Elementary School.

In the instant case, the petitioner, a widow, had applied for a position at an Elementary School. However, her candidature was rejected by the respondent which was decided in pursuant to the judgment in Gena Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1089.

The counsel representing the petitioner, Kailash Jangid, submitted that the petitioner, being a widow, should be ideally granted certain benefits and be appointed accordingly.

The General Counsel representing the respondents, Vishal Jangid submitted that no interference can be made out in such writ petition. He also relied on the case of Manoj Bhatia v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9357 of 2019, decided on 3.7.2019 wherein the present High Court had concluded that only on account of widowhood of a candidate cannot continue with the Elementary Education and that she is entitled to priority in the counselling.

The present Court placed reliance on the judgment of Manoj Bhatia and reiterated the proposition laid down in the case, however, it also stated that the petitioner may approach the respondents for the vacancy in the Secondary School nearby and the respondents shall review any viability regarding the same. The Court also provided that nevertheless, such a statement does not create any right in favour of the petitioner.[Premi Choudhary v. State Of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 2068, decided on 05-08-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following six Additional Judges of the Calcutta High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha,
2. Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee,
3. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,
4. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya,
5. Justice Shekhar Bobby Saraf, and
6. Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. stated that,

For the purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the abovenamed recommendees for appointment as Permanent Judges, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed on record, including certain complaints against some of the above-named recommendees. 

On overall assessment and having regard to all relevant factors including the views of our consultee-colleagues, concurrence of the State Government, the Judgment Committee Report and the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file, the Collegium is of the view that

Justices (1) Rajasekhar Mantha, (2) Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, (3) Moushumi Bhattacharya, (4) Shekhar Bobby Saraf, and (5) Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Additional Judges, are suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges.

Whereas, in regards to Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee Collegium is of the considered view that, for the present, he be appointed as Additional Judge for a fresh term of six months w.e.f. 21-09-2019.

[Collegium Resolution dt. 31-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following three Additional Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta,
2. Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma, and
3. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

Having taken into consideration all relevant factors including the above-mentioned report of the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to reiterate its recommendation dated 8-04-2019 for the appointment of Justices (1) Sharad Kumar Gupta, (2) Ram Prasanna Sharma, and (3) Arvind Singh Chandel, Additional Judges as Permanent Judges of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

[Collegium Resolution dt. 31-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following six Additional Judges of the Madras High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice S. Ramathilagam,
2. Justice R. Tharani,
3. Justice P. Rajamanickam,
4. Justice T. Krishnavalli,
5. Justice R. Pongiappan, and
6. Justice R. Hemalatha

On overall assessment and having regard to all relevant factors including the views of our consultee-colleagues, concurrence of the State Government, the Judgment Committee Report and the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file, the Collegium is of the view that:

(1) Justice S. Ramathilagam, (2) Justice R. Tharani, (3) Justice P. Rajamanickam, (4) Justice T. Krishnavalli, (5) Justice R. Pongiappan, and (6) Justice R. Hemalatha, Additional Judges, are suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges.

[Collgium Resolution dt. 31-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 19 Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice Rajiv Joshi
2. Justice Rahul Chaturvedi
3. Justice Salil Kumar Rai
4. Justice Jayant Banerji
5. Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
6. Justice Irshad Ali
7. Justice Saral Srivastava
8. Justice Jahangir Jamshed Munir
9. Justice Rajiv Gupta
10. Justice Siddharth
11. Justice Ajit Kumar
12. Justice Rajnish Kumar
13. Justice Abdul Moin
14. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
15. Justice Rajeev Misra
16. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
17. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
18. Justice Ajay Bhanot
19. Justice Neeraj Tiwari

With a view to assess merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for appointment as Permanent Judges, Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. carefully scrutinized the material placed on record including certain complaints received against some of the above-named recommendees.

Therefore, the Collegium is of the view that Justices (1) Rajiv Joshi, (2) Salil Kumar Rai, (3) Jayant Banerji, (4) Rajesh Singh Chauhan, (5) Saral Srivastava, (6) Jahangir Jamshed Munir, (7) Rajiv Gupta, (8) Siddharth, (9) Ajit Kumar, (10) Rajnish Kumar, (11) Abdul Moin, (12) Dinesh Kumar Singh, (13) Rajeev Misra, (14) Vivek Kumar Singh, (15) Chandra Dhari Singh, and (16) Ajay Bhanot, Additional Judges, are suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges. 

As regards Justices (1) Rahul Chaturvedi, (2) Irshad Ali and (3) Neeraj Tiwari, the Collegium is of the considered view that consideration of their proposal deserves to be deferred.

Thus, Collegium resolves to recommend the above-stated Additional Judges to be appointed as Permanent Judges of the Allahabad High Court against the existing vacancies.

[Collegium Resolution dt. 30-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi J., allowed the petition and held that past service of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration for calculating his retiral benefits.

The factual matrix of the instant petition that in the year 1981, an advertisement was published by the Principal, Bokaro Steel City College, Bokaro for filling up the vacancies for different posts. The petitioner was selected and joined the post on 28-05-1985. The service book of the petitioner also depicted that the date of joining of the petitioner is May, 1985. However, when the 5th Pay revision pay fixation and the chart has been issued by the respondent in which the date of joining has been stated as 1-8-1993 and have substantially reduced the scale of the petitioner. 

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Saket Upadhayay submitted that based on all the documents the date of joining of the petitioner is 28.05.1985 and that the past service of an employee who has worked for such a long period cannot be denied to be taken for other benefits. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the case of Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. v. Chandreshwar Prasad, 2014 1 JCR 732 (Jhr).

Learned counsel for the respondent, I.S. Choudhary submitted that the appointment with effect from 1985 was temporary and as such the petitioner is not entitled to other retiral benefits. She relied upon the case of Kashi Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 780, which was distinguished by this Bench as not applicable to facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, she relied upon the case State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010)9 SCC 247 wherein the Supreme Court considered about the appointment which are illegal and irregular. The Bench in this Court held that this judgment, in this case, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be irregular and illegal in view of the fact that the University issued admit card and subsequently the appointment has been made. The counsel for the respondent further placed reliance upon State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi wherein it was considered that the writ petitioners were working as a casual employee. The Bench herein held that the petitioner appointment was made after following the due process of law hence he was not a casual employee.

In view of the above, the Court held that the appointment of the petitioner was not irregular and illegal because after advertisement and following the due process of law the petitioner was appointed on that post. The date of joining is held to be 28-05-1985 and consequently, past service of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration for calculating his retiral benefits.[Nandeshwar Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 906, decided on 10-07-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. dismissed an appeal seeking directions for an appointment based on the subsequent waiting list when the selected candidate and the waitlisted candidate did not report.

The petitioner had offered his candidature for selection against the post of Accounts Assistant (ST category) by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board. The board, at the culmination of the selection process, forwarded the selection list containing the name of a lone candidate along with a waiting list, also containing the name of only one candidate. While the Department had yet to act on the selection list so forwarded to it by the Board, the petitioner made a representation addressed to the Directorate General, Accounts and Treasuries, bringing it to his notice that the selected candidate and the candidate figuring in the waiting list had tendered affidavits stating that they did not intend to join, and requesting him to direct the concerned authorities to process his case for appointment in accordance with norms as his candidature was on top in the subsequent waiting list. The request was rejected by the board as there were no rules for appointment of a candidate whose name is neither in the selection list and nor in the waiting list.

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the above rule moved to the Court.

The issue for determination was: whether a candidate in a selection process securing a merit position below the waitlisted candidate can lay a claim for selection and appointment against the advertised post in the event the waitlisted candidate does not join against the post when the appointment is offered to him on account of non-joining of the selected candidate

Learned counsel for the petitioner Nissar Ahmad, submitted that since the petitioner’s name was there in the merit list after the waitlisted candidate, who did not join against the post, a right has accrued to him for being appointed against the post, but the respondents were unjustifiably denying him such right. It was also averred that the respondent had not shown any legal infirmity in denying appointment order in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsels for the respondent D.C Raina and Mir Suhail, submitted before the Court that there was no rule to provide a supplementary waiting list and this position was clarified by the Board earlier in terms of communication. It was further stated in the reply that since the petitioner’s name did not figure either in the select list or the waiting list he had no right or locus to claim selection and appointment against the post. Furthermore, Rule 14 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Decentralization and Recruitment Rules Act, 2010 (2010 Rules) which governs the selection process did not provide any provisions for making an appointment from the subsequent waiting lists. Thus, they requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

 The Court observed that since the 2010 Rules was the governing statute for the appointment to the concerned post and it did not provide any provision regarding making of a subsequent waiting list for the purpose of filling a seat, the same cannot be de done as it would be violating the provisions of the statute. The Court also relied on the Judgment given in the case of Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB, (1996) 4 SCC 319 in which Supreme Court very clearly observed that appointment on more than the advertised seats cannot be allowed as the governing provision laid no rules regarding that. The Court, thus, dismissed the petition.[Liyakat Hussain Baniya v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 442, decided on 17-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agarwal, J. allowed a petition filed by a Sub-Registrar duly appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908, who was implicated in an FIR registered for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 424 read with Section 34 IPC, and quashed the FIR insofar the petitioner was concerned.

While discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar, the petitioner allowed a sale deed to be registered. The said transaction regarding the subject land off-shot into the registration of FIR against the vendors alleging that the subject land was transferred fraudulently. The petitioner was also implicated in the FIR as an accused. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner purely acted in the capacity of Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act, and therefore, the FIR against him should be quashed. Per contra, S.K. Agrawal, Government Advocate submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner was strictly in accordance with the law and no exception could be taken against it. While, Govind Dewangan, Advocate for the vendors supported the case of the petitioner.

The question for consideration before the High Court was — whether the petitioner/Sub-Registrar while registering the sale deed, was required to make roving enquiry upon the absolute title of the vendors qua subject land before making registration of sale deed in favour of vendees?

The Court perused Sections 34(3) and 35(1) of the Registration Act and noted: “A conjoint reading of Sections 34 and 35 shows that the scope of enquiry to be made by the registering officer is limited by the Act, restricted to the factum of execution and the identity of the person executing document, other than the levy of stamp duty, collection of registration charges and the completion of procedural formalities such as attestation, etc. There is nothing in this provision requiring the registering officer to make a roving enquiry about the title of the person with regard to the property which is being sold by the sale of deed. In my considered opinion, provisions contained in Section 34(1) do not cast any duty on the registering officer to make an enquiry qua title of the person transferring the subject land to the transferee/purchaser”.

After referring to a conspectus of authorities, the Court reached a conclusion that registration of sale deed allowed by the petitioner/Sub-Registrar while acting in the capacity of Sub-Registrar was in accordance with law. Therefore, it was held that the FIR insofar as the petitioner was concerned, was liable to be quashed and orders were made accordingly. [Daduram Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 59, decided on 20-06-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Prashant Kumar, Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel relinquishes the charge as Acting Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court consequent upon his appointment as Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

[Notification dt. 03-06-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. disposed of a petition considering the long litigation between the parties and gave directions to the competent authority.

In the present matter, the petitioner was an unemployed divorced lady who got selected for the post of Anganwadi worker but an appeal was made against the same by the Respondent 4 (who has been working on the post for more than 6 years) which even got accepted and the selection was set aside. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner maintained appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner maintained writ petition before the Court. Shalini Thakur, counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner was a divorcee, therefore could not be treated as a member of the family for deciding the income of the family, which was taken as the basis for rejection of appointment. And since she is a single mother she had a son to look after all by herself. While the counsels for the respondents S.C. Sharma, Shiv Pal Manhans and P.K. Bhatti, Additional Advocate Generals with Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy Advocate General, contended that the petitioner has given her father’s address, which makes it evident that she was, in fact, residing with her father. And, that the Tehsildar also gave his findings establishing the same. Further, it was also alleged that the petitioner has remarried.

The Court after taking into consideration the long litigation between the parties, the situation of Respondent 4, who is working for more than 6 years on the post and the fact that the petitioner is a divorcee, who cannot be taken as a family member of her father for the purpose of income held and directed that for the interest of justice to be met the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi worker in and around the place of her residence in near future.[Heera Mani v. State of H.P., CWP No. 2772 of 2017, decided on 21-05-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Arup Kumar Goswami, senior-most Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from the date Shri Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna relinquishes the charge as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court consequent upon his appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

[Notification dt. 22-05-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice