Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
President appoints the following Additional Judges as Permanent Judges:
S/Shri Justices (i) V.G. Arun (ii) N. Nagaresh (iii) T.V. Anilkumar, and (iv) N. Anil Kumar, Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court, to be Judges of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Read the notification, here: NOTIFICATION
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 11-09-2020]
President appoints S/Shri Justices (1) Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi and (2) Deepak Roshan, Additional Judges of the Jharkhand High Court, to be Judges of the Jharkhand High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Read the notification here: NOTIFICATION
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 11-09-2020]
President appoints appoint Shri Rajesh Bhardwaj, to be an Additional Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Read the notification here: NOTIFICATION
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 11-09-2020]
President appoints the following as the Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court in the order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective office:
S/Shri (1) Sanjay Kumar Pachori (2) Subhash Chandra Sharma (3) Subhash Chand and (4) Smt. Saroj Yadav
Read the notification here: NOTIFICATION
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 11-09-2020]
Supreme Court Collegium approves proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
Supreme of India
[Collegium Statement dt. 24-08-2020]
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sangeet Lodha and Rameshwar Vyas, JJ. dismissed the Special Appeal by upholding the decision of the Single Judge.
The present case is an appeal preferred against the judgment of a Single Judge Bench wherein the division bench upheld the former’s verdict. The facts of the case bring into question the respondent State’s denial to the petitioner/appellant his appointment on compassionate grounds for having more than two children, rendering him non-eligible for service. The petitioner/appellant here is the son of deceased government employee whose survivors could seek an appointment by adhering to the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (1996 Rules) and Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, Vikas Bijamia contended that even though the appellant had three children, he satisfied all other eligibility criteria and was in fact in dire need of the said appointment. Laying too much emphasis on particularly the ‘number of children’ yardstick defeats the underlying purpose of the 1996 Rules i.e. to provide immediate relief to the family of the bereaved.
The Division Judge Bench upheld the previous Judgment by categorically affirming that in absence of any provision for the relaxation of any eligibility qualification and other service conditions in the Rules, an appointment cannot be offered to the dependent of the deceased Government servant.[Ramdev v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1179, decided on 30-07-2020]
Collegium Statement
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Jharkhand High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
1. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, and
2. Justice Deepak Roshan
Supreme Court Collegium
[Collegium Statement dt. 21-07-2020]
SC Collegium approves appointment of 4 Additional Judges of Bombay HC as Permanent Judges
Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Bombay High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
Supreme Court Collegium
[Collegium Statement dt. 21-07-2020]
Kerala High Court: While deciding the instant petition challenging the appointment of a District and Sessions Judge, the Bench of P.V. Asha, J., placing reliance upon Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 213; set aside the appointment as the appointee was not an ‘advocate’ as on the date of his appointment as per the requisite and was instead in Judicial Service as on the last date fixed for completing step 2 of the process of the recruitment.
As per the facts, the High Court of Kerala issued Notification dated 21-11-2017 inviting applications for appointment as District and Sessions Judges in the Kerala Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar. After the written examination and interview, the High Court published list of candidates who qualified in the examination. On 08-06-2019 the High Court issued notice that the candidates who were Judicial Officers on the date of publication of recruitment notification would not be considered for appointment as District and Sessions Judges.
However, the respondent was appointed as a Sessions Judge against the NCA vacancy of Ezhavas/ Thiyyas/ Billavas. Petitioner’s counsel S. Sreekumar argued that in the aforementioned Dheeraj Mor case the Supreme Court made it clear that the quota set apart for direct recruitment cannot be filled up by those in service and that a candidate submitting application shall continue to be a practising advocate as on the date of his appointment, therefore the petitioner should be appointed in the place of the respondent/ appointee. The respondent’s counsel S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, contended that the eligibility of a candidate is determined as on the date of final submission of his application. It was stated that since he had already completed the process of submitting application. As per the respondent crucial date for determining eligibility was 27-12-2017 which was the last date for submitting application and that he was a practising Advocate till he joined as Munsiff-Magistrate, and started discharging his duties on 12-02-2018. The respondent contended that the date and the requirement was that candidates should possess the qualifications with respect to age and 7 years of practice as advocate as on 01-01-2017.
Perusing the contentions, the Court observed that petitioner had all the qualifications as was required and mentioned by Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules i.e. age between 35-45; a practising Advocate having a standing of not less than 7 (seven) years of practice as on the first day of January 2017. The petitioner was inducted in Kerala Judicial Service as Munsiff-Magistrate only with effect from 12-02-2018 and hence continuing as an Advocate till the charge of the post was taken on 12-02-2018.
Therefore, even on extension of the date of closure of step II process from 11-01-2018 to 22-01-2018, the petitioner continued to be an Advocate. The Court further observed that the concerned paragraph in the Notification and Rules containing the clause “save as otherwise provided” cannot apply to eligibility regarding qualification. It can only be with respect to requirements for which no date or condition is provided. Therefore, it cannot be said that eligibility with respect to qualification is to be determined as on the date of closure of step II process. The Court also noted that in Dheeraj Mor case, the Supreme Court clarified the position stating that, “for direct recruitment as District Judge as against the quota fixed for the advocates/pleaders, incumbent has to be practicing advocate and must be in practice as on the cut-off date and at the time of appointment he must not be in judicial service or other services of the Union or State. For constituting experience of 7 years of practice as advocate, experience obtained in judicial service cannot be equated/ combined and advocate/pleader should be in practice in the immediate past for 7 years and must be in practice while applying on the cut-off date fixed under the rules and should be in practice as an advocate on the date of appointment.” After examining the concerned Rules and the Supreme Court decision, the Court deemed it fit to allow the petition and held that as the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in place of the respondent. [K. Deepa v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 2769 , decided on 14-07-2020]
Justice Ravi Vijaykumar Malimath, senior-most Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, to perform the duties of the office of Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 28th July, 2020 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 16-07-2020]
Supreme Court: The bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has dismissed a plea by a district judge challenging the appointment of a ‘junior’ judicial officer as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court and seeking a stay on his swearing-in contending that it breaches the seniority rule.
The bench took up the matter through video conferencing at 10 am, just half an hour before the scheduled swearing-in of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court and dismissed it saying the Court cannot entertain such plea at the eleventh hour. The Court said that it generally does not interfere with the President’s order on appointment of judges at the eleventh hour.
Shivamogga principal district judge RKGMM Mahaswamiji has challenged the appointment of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as additional judge of the Karnataka High Court on the ground of seniority. The plea of Mahaswamiji said,
“It is a case of superseding/passing over of a senior District judge (who was appointed on February 25, 2008, under reserve category ie., schedule caste) by junior district judge and recommendation of Respondent No. 11 (P N Desai) by the collegium of Karnataka High Court is unlawful, arbitrary, and in clear violation of statutory rules / administrative instructions contained in the official memorandum dated October 9, 1985, and involved bias of malafide and it clearly violated the functional rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.”
He had said that if the interim relief of staying the swearing-in ceremony of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as an additional judge of Karnataka High Court is not granted then the purpose of the petition will be defeated and it may cause failure of complete justice and clear infraction of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
According to the notification issued by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, Justice Makkimane G Uma, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar and Justice Padmaraj N Desai, were to take oath of additional judges of Karnataka High Court at 10.30 am.
(Source: PTI)
President appoints S/Shri (1) Shivashankar Amarannavar, (2) Smt. Makkimane Ganeshaiah Uma, (3) Vedavyasachar Srishananda, (4) Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, and (5) Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai, to be Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 30-04-2020]
President appoints S/Shri Justices (i) Bibek Chaudhuri (ii) Subhasis Dasgupta and (iii) Smt. Suvra Ghosh, Additional Judges of the Calcutta High Court, to be Judges of the Calcutta High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 01-05-2020]
President appoints S/Shri Justices (i) Parth Prateem Sahu, (ii) Gautam Chourdiya and (iii) Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, 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
President is pleased to appoint Smt. Vimla Singh Kapoor, to be an Additional Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court for a period of one year with effect from 18th June, 2020.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notifcation dt. 21-04-2020]
B. P. Kanungo re-appointed as RBI Deputy Governor
The Central Government has re-appointed Shri B. P. Kanungo as Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a further period of one year with effect from April 3, 2020, or until further orders, whichever is earlier, upon completion of his existing term on April 2, 2020.
Reserve Bank of India
[Press Release dt. 31-03-2020]
In terms of paragraph 5 (3) of the ‘Yes Bank Ltd. Reconstruction Scheme, 2020’ notified by Government of India on March 13, 2020 and in exercise of powers conferred to it under sub section (1) of Section 36 AB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank has appointed Shri R Gandhi (former Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India) and Shri Ananth Narayan Gopalakrishnan (Associate Professor, S P Jain Institute of Management and Research) as additional directors on the board of Yes Bank Limited, w.e.f. March 26, 2020 for a period of two years.
Reserve Bank of India
[Press Release dt. 20-03-2020]
