Appointment

Appointments & TransfersNews

President of India in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Justices Prakash Padia, Alok Mathur, Pankaj Bhatia, Saurabh Lavania,  Vivek Varma, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Piyush Agrawal, Shriaurabh Shyam Shamshery, Jaspreet Singh, Rajeev Singh, Manju Rani Chauhan, Karunesh Singh Pawar,  Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Manish Mathur, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, Ram Krishna Gautam, Umesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Anil Kumar—IX, Rajendra Kumar—IV, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, Virendra Kumar Srivastava, Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sushri Ghandikota Sri Devi, Narendra Kumar Johari, Raj Beer Singh and  Ajit Singh, Additional Judges of the Allahabad High Court, as Judges of the Allahabad High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective office.

  • Justice Prakash Padia, B.A., L.L.B, was born on 10.03.1965. He enrolled as an Advocate on 02.02.1989. He had 28 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Company and Service matters with specialization in Corporation and Education. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Alok Mathur, B.Sc (Hons.) Chemistry, LLB, was born on 16.11.1964. He enrolled as an Advocate on 06.10.1989. He had 28 years of practice in Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation, Labour and Service matters with specialization in Constitutional and Taxation matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Pankaj Bhatia, B.Sc., LLB, was born on 15.09.1966. He enrolled as an Advocate on 09.12.1989. He had 27 years of practice (18 yrs. in Allahabad High Court and 9 years in Supreme Court) in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation, and Service matters with specialization in Indirect Taxes. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Saurabh Lavania, B.A., L.L.B, M.L.P.M., was born on 17.04.1966. He enrolled as an Advocate on 22.04.1990. He had 26 years of practice in High Court and Subordinate Courts in Civil, Service and Constitutional matters with specialization in Civil, Service and Constitutional matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Vivek Varma, B.Sc., (Biology), L.L.B., was born on 29.12.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 04.09.1992. He had 25 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Constitutional, Education, Service and Local Bodies with specialization in Education, Local Bodies and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, B.Sc., L.L.B., was born on 21.01.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 09.05.1993. He had 24 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Criminal, Civil, Service, Education and Misc. Writ Jurisdiction with specialization in Criminal matters relating to economic offences and Narcotics. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Piyush Agrawal, B.Com, LL.B., was born on 06.11.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 28.08.1993. He had 24 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Taxation, Company and Constitutional matters with specialization in Taxation matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, B.Sc., LLB., was born on 04.02.1969. He enrolled as an Advocate on 20.11.1994. He had 22 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Arbitration and Electricity with specialization in Constitutional, Civil, Criminal, Arbitration and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Jaspreet Singh, B.Com., LLB., was born on 29.08.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 21.12.1994. He had 23 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Constitutional, Taxation and Company matters with specialization in Civil matter. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rajeev Singh, B.Sc., LLB., was born on 03.04.1968. He enrolled as an Advocate on 15.01.1995. He had 22 years of practice in Lucknow High Court, CAT, UP State Public Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, in Criminal, Constitutional, Civil, Labour, Company and Service matters with specialization in Criminal, Constitutional and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, M.A., LLB., was born on 29.08.1966.
    She enrolled as an Advocate on 26.11.1995. She had 22 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal and Service matters with specialization in Service matter. She was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. Her present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar, B.A., LLB., was born on 19.05.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 05.02.1996. He had 21 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Service, Criminal and Constitutional matters with specialization in Service matters, Co-operative Societies, Law relating to Sugar Industries. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Dr Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, M.Sc., D.Phil., LLB., was born on 30.12.1965. He enrolled as an Advocate on 27.05.1996. He had 21 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Company, Constitutional, Labour, Service, Revenue and Excise matters with specialization in Civil, Constitutional, Service, Company Matters, Labour and Industrial Laws. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Manish Mathur, B.Com., LLB., was born on 09.06.1972. He enrolled as an Advocate on 27.12.1996. He had 20 years of practice in Allahabad High Court in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Labour and Service matters with specialization in Civil and Service matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 2 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, B.A., LLB., was born on 05.07.1971. He enrolled as an Advocate on 20.11.1997. He had 20 years of practice in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional, Taxation, Labour, Company and Service matters with specialization in Civil, Tax, Company matters. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Ramkrishna Gautam, BSc., LL.B., was born on 15.06.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 08.08.1985. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Umesh Kumar, BA., LL.B., was born on 08.07.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 05.08.1985. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., was born on 30.09.1959. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Anil Kumar-IX, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 31.05.1959. He joined the Judicial Service on 01.08.1986. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV, B.A., LL.B., was born on 01.07.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, B.Com (Hons.)., LL.B., was born on 26.01.1963. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice VikasKunvar Srivastava, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., was born on 28.06.1960. He joined the Judicial Service on 17.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Virendra Kumar Srivastava, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 01.01.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 26.10.1984. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Suresh Kumar Gupta, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 21.06.1961. He joined the Judicial Service on 18.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer.He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice GhandikotaSree Devi, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 21.06.1961. She joined Judicial Service on 30.09.2005. She served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. She was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years and transferred to Telangana High Court w.e.f 15.05.2019. Her present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 20.10.1962. He joined the Judicial Service on 10.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer.  He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Raj Beer Singh, B.Sc., LL.B., LLM, was born on 06.12.1964. He joined the Judicial Service on 26.07.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 02 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.
  • Justice Ajit Singh, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 30.03.1961. He joined the Judicial Service on 13.06.2005. He served in various capacities as a Judicial Officer. He was appointed as an Additional Judge of Allahabad High Court on 22.11.2018 for a period of 2 years. His present term as an Additional Judge will expire on 21.11.2020.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Press Release dt. 17-11-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (l) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, has appointed Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Justice Nani Tagia, and Justice Manish Choudhury, the Additional Judges of the Gauhati High Court, as Judges of the Gauhati High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices. Notifications No.K-13018/02/2020-US.11 and No. K. 13018/03/2020-US.II dated 05-11-2020, have been issued in this regard by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice.

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Press Release dt. 06-11-2020]

[Source: PIB]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah*, JJ had held that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post, not the Courts.

“Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an Institution or an Industry or an establishment as the case may be. The Courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts.”

In the present case, applications were invited by the appellant Bank for the post of Peon by publishing an advertisement in the local newspaper. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the said advertisement was that a candidate should have passed 12th class or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English. It specifically provided that a candidate should not be a Graduate as on 01.01.2016. 

The respondent herein – original writ petitioner, based on the information provided by him in his application, was appointed. While scrutiny of the documents was going on, the appellant Bank came to know about a graduate certificate showing that the respondent was a graduate since 2014.  Thus, it was noticed and found that he was not eligible as per the advertisement and the Circulars and that the respondent deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled and he was not allowed to join the bank in subordinate cadre. The High Court of Orissa, however, directed the appellant Bank to allow the respondent to discharge his duties as a Peon as per the appointment order.

The Bank submitted that considering the nature of the post – Peon/subordinate cadre, a conscious decision was taken by it that a candidate having the qualification of graduation shall not be eligible and the candidate who passed in 12th standard or its equivalent with basic reading/writing knowledge of English shall only be eligible. Hence, unless it is found to be most arbitrary, the same cannot be the subject-matter of a judicial review.

The Court held that prescribing the eligibility criteria/educational qualification that a graduate candidate shall not be eligible and the candidate must have passed 12th standard is justified and it is a conscious decision taken by the Bank which is in force since 2008. Therefore, the High Court has clearly erred in directing the appellant Bank to allow the respondent-original writ petitioner to discharge his duties as a Peon, though he as such was not eligible as per the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the Court noticed that in the application, the respondent did not disclose that he is a graduate from 2014 and only mentioned his qualification as 12th pass. Therefore, the respondent deliberately, wilfully and intentionally suppressed the fact that he was a graduate. Had it been known to the bank that he was a graduate, he would not have at all been considered for selection as a Peon in the bank.

The Court further held that once having participated in the recruitment process as per the advertisement, thereafter it is not open for him to contend that acquisition of higher qualification cannot be a disqualification and that too when he never challenged the eligibility criteria/educational qualification mentioned in the advertisement.

[Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 897, decided on 03.11.2020]

*Justice MR Shah has penned this judgment 

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Resolution

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Gauhati High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, and

2. Justice Nani Tagia.

Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Resolution dt. 12-10-2020]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where a man was tried for and later acquitted from charges under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, the bench of Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah, JJ held that the apprehension that a stigma shall continue with the name of the appellant is misconceived, as stigma, if any, is already over by acquittal.

The appellant had challenged the order of the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring him ineligible for being appointed to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) and had sought reconsideration by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. On this the Court said that the mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground for reconsideration of his application by the High Court.

Brief facts of the case

The appellant submitted an online form after the High Court of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 09.03.2017 inviting applications for recruitment in the post of District Judge(Entry Level) in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service by Direct Recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates.

  • The appellant after being declared successful in the Main Examination was called for interview.
  • The appellant received a communication on 06.04.2018 from the Law and Legislative Department informing that he has been selected for the post of District Judge (Entry Level). He was asked to appear before the Medical Board for the health tests.
  • On 02.07.2018, the copy of the FIR filed against him by his wife in the year 2014 under Section 498/406/34 IPC was asked for.
  • On 14.09.2018, order was issued by the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Department declaring the appellant ineligible and directing for deletion the name of the appellant from the select list.
  • The Government also issued a Gazette notification deleting the name of the appellant from the main select list.
  • On 18.09.2019, the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him in the aforementioned criminal case registered against him by his wife.

Arguments advanced before the Supreme Court

It was argued before the Court that appellant having disclosed the lodging of FIR against him has not concealed any fact before the High Court and he, having been selected on merit, was entitled to be appointed. On the subsequent acquittal of the appellant on 18.09.2019 his case for appointment was to be reconsidered by the High Court and the High Court committed an error in not considering the appellant for appointment. The candidature of the appellant could not have been cancelled merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

“The appellant could not have been deprived of the employment after acquittal. There was no other material on record to indicate that antecedent or conduct of the appellant was not upto the mark. The High Court ought to have sent the matter back before the Higher Judicial Service and Examination-cum-Selection Committee for reconsideration.”

WHAT THE COURT SAID

On validity of the order declaring the appellant ineligible

The Court, however, noticed that the present is not a case where the name of the appellant was deleted in the select list on the ground of any concealment of criminal case against him. The name of the appellant was included in the select list which was forwarded to the State. The State after character verification submitted a report which report was considered on 18.07.2018 by the Administrative Committee (Higher Judicial Service) and Examination-cum-Selection and Appointment Committee and a resolution was taken that due to pendency of the case under Section 498A, 406-34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the wife, the appellant is not considered suitable for being appointed to the post of District Judge.

Stressing of the requirement that after declaration of the merit list the candidates have to be given appointments in time bound manner so that they may join the respective posts, the Court noticed that on the date when the Committee declared the appellant unsuitable, criminal case against him under Section 498A and 406 IPC was pending which was registered on a complaint filed by the appellant’s wife.

“The mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate. The employer has right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground. The persons who occupy Judicial Service of the State are persons who are expected to have impeccable character and conduct.”

The character verification report was received from the State where pendency of the criminal case was mentioned which was the reason for the Committee to declare the appellant unsuitable.

On reconsideration of application by High Court after acquittal of the appellant

“In the present case the acquittal having taken place after the close of recruitment process, there was no question of examining the acquittal order by the High Court at the time of finalizing the selection process.”

The Court noticed that there can be no dispute that in event it is found that decision by which the candidature of a candidate is rejected is arbitrary or actuated by malafide such decision can be interfered by the Constitutional Courts. However, the decision of Examination-cum-Section and Appointment Committee for holding the appellant unsuitable was based on the relevant consideration, i.e., a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC was pending consideration which was registered on a complaint filed by the wife of the appellant.

“Such decision of the Committee was well within the jurisdiction and power of the Committee and cannot be said to be unsustainable. The mere fact that subsequently after more than a year when the person whose candidature has been cancelled has been acquitted cannot be a ground to turn the clock backward.”

On stigma attached with appellant’s name

It was argued before the Court that due to deletion of the name of appellant from select list a stigma is attached to him, for removal of which this Court may issue notice in this SLP. The Court, however, said that the appellant having already been acquitted by the judgment dated 18.09.2019 stigma of criminal case has already washed out and the criminal case having resulted in acquittal no stigma is attached to the appellant’s name on the above ground.

[Anil Bhardwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 832, 13.10.2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the Jharkhand State Aarogya Society issued an advertisement for appointment in different posts by way of walk-in-interview. The said appointment shall be a contractual appointment for a period of three years with the rider that on completion of three years, the review would be done of the work of the appointed persons and upon their being found to be satisfactory, their services shall be extended for the next year and if found to be unsatisfactory then after giving one month’s notice his service shall be terminated. The petitioner applied for the post of Senior Consultant (Finance) got a total of 45 marks which was found to be highest and was selected for the post. The petitioner received the appointment letter dated 15.10.2019 and was terminated vide letter dated 23-06-2020 even without completing one year. Aggrieved by the same, instant petition was filed for quashing the said termination order.

Counsel for the petitioner Rahul Kumar submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking and illegal. He further submitted that the order was issued without following clause-6 of the appointment letter which provides for one month’s notice before terminating the service of the employee, and has been issued without any show cause and hence is in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed.

Counsel for the respondents Salona Mittal submitted that the appointment letter categorically mentions that the appointments are being made for a period of three years subject to review of the performance every year and if the same is not found satisfactory, their services can be terminated.  It was further submitted that due to the negligence of the petitioner, the office of the respondents was levied with a penalty by the Income-tax Department for not filing TDS within time.  It was further submitted that the order was issued after following the due process of law as show cause dated 22-01-2020 was served.

The Court observed that there was no statutory rule requiring one month’s notice for termination by the respondents of the service of the petitioner but only the term of appointment order which stipulated for one month’s notice. The term contained in clause-6 of the appointment letter reads as under

 “On unsatisfactory contract of service termination can be made after providing a month’s notice.”

This nowhere suggests or indicates that non-service of one month’s notice as a condition precedent for termination of petitioner’s service would result in vitiation or invalidation of termination of service if effected.

The Court further relied on judgment Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. T. Mohammed Raisuli Hassan, (1993) 1 SCC 553 and observed

“4. Admittedly, there was no statutory rule requiring one month’s notice for termination by the appellant of the service of the respondent. It is only the term of appointment order, which stipulated for one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu thereof by either side to bring an end to the service of the respondent, which is made the basis for claiming invalidation of termination. That term contained in clause 10 of the appointment order reads:

“10. This appointment is liable to b eterminated at any time by giving one month’s notice, in writing, on either side, or a month’s salary in lieu of notice, without assigning any reason.

Breach of this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one month’s salary in lieu of notice.”

5. When the above term in the clause relating to the condition of service of the respondent with the appellant is seen as a whole, there is nothing to indicate or suggest, even remotely, that non-service of one month’s notice as a condition precedent for termination of the respondent’s service would result in vitiation or invalidation of termination, if effected. On the contrary, the second part of the term contained in the clause, “breach of this condition, will entitle the company to recover from you one month’s salary in lieu of notice” makes it obvious that the same would be the consequence if there was a breach of condition on the part of the company in the matter of service of one month’s notice before termination of the respondent’s service. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the non-service of one month’s notice in writing by the appellant to the respondent before terminating the latter’s service did not invalidate or vitiate such termination. From this, it follows that courts below had misread the said clause, by which either party was required to serve notice for putting an end to service of the respondent and consequently committed an apparent error in taking the view that non-service of one month’s prior notice to the respondent had vitiated the termination of his service.”

In light of the well-settled law in this aspect and the above authoritative pronouncement, Court held that the service of the petitioner was not being governed by any statutory but by the appointment letter wherein it was nowhere explicitly mention that non-service of one month’s notice in writing by the respondents to the petitioner before terminating the service of the petitioner will invalidate or vitiate such termination.

In view of the above, petition stands dismissed.[Chandrashekhar v. State of Jharkhand,  2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 838, decided on 06-10-2020]

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Hot Off The PressNews

Appointments of Judges

President appoints the following to be the Judges of Gujarat High Court:

  • Vaibhavi Devan Nanavati
  • Nirzarkumar Sushilkumar Desai
  • Nikhil Shreedharan Kariel

Here’s the notification: APPOINTMENT

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Press Release dt. 01-10-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

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]

Appointments & TransfersNews

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]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of an Additional Judge

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]

Appointments & TransfersNews

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]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Supreme Court Collegium approves proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of Calcutta High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

  • Justice Md. Nizamuddin,
  • Justice Tirthankar Ghosh,
  • Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
  • Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, and
  • Justice Manojit Mandal.

Supreme of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 24-08-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

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]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Girish Chandra Murmu to be the Comptroller and Auditor General of India with effect from the date he assumes charge.

Ministry of Finance

[Notification dt. 06-08-2020]

Image Credits: TOI

Appointments & TransfersNews

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

STATEMENT

Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statement dt. 21-07-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

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:

  • Justice S.M. Modak,
  • Justice Jamadar N. Jahiroddin,
  • Justice Vinay G.Joshi, and
  • Justice Avachat R. Govind

STATEMENT

Supreme Court Collegium

[Collegium Statement dt. 21-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

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]    

Hot Off The PressNews

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.

NOTIFICATION

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 16-07-2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

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)

Appointments & TransfersNews

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]