Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 28th September, 2022 has recommended elevation of Judges as Chief Justices of the High Courts, as mentioned below:

Name Present Court High Court where appointed as Chief Justice
Jaswant Singh Orissa Orissa
P.B. Varale Bombay Karnataka
Ali Mohammad Magrey J&K J&K

 

On 28-09-2022, the Supreme Court Collegium  has recommended transfer of the following Chief Justices of High Courts

 

Name High Court from High Court To
Dr. S. Muralidhar Orissa Madras
Pankaj Mithal J&K Rajasthan
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where a Constable’s name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police but the same was dropped down by the Inspector General of Police for promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 2004, the bench of KM Joseph and PS Narsimha, JJ has held that mere recommendation of the SP at the initial stage is not sufficient to claim a right for promotion.

Factual Background

The Appellant was appointed as a Constable in the year 1995. Due to his acts of bravery his name was recommended by the SP for promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 21.01.2004. However, his name was dropped down by the IG, when only 7 out of the 9 names were forwarded to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee (CDPC). Three years thereafter, i.e., in 2007 his name was again forwarded by the SP and this time it was passed by the IG, by virtue of which he was granted promotion and was made the Officiating Head Constable from 26.10.2008.

He contended that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary. He, hence, filed a writ petition in 2011 seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 21.01.2004. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right.

Analysis

The Court observed that assumption that the recommendation of DPC headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived.

The Court noticed that Sub-rule 14 of Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 clearly empowers the IG to exercise the power of scrutiny and grant approval.

The Rule itself clarifies the position that the recommendations of the SP are not final until the same is approved by the IG. Further, the powers of the IG are elucidated clearly in Rule 13.7(14). It is stated that the ‘approval’ is by the Cadre Controlling Authority of the SP. It is the IG, who shall accord ‘approval’ only upon scrutiny.

“If the IG is not satisfied, he shall not accord approval. The scope of the power vested in the IG is also indicated in the Rule which provides that he can seek clarifications from the DPC and also refer the List back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary.”

Having considered the Rule in its entirety, the Court was of the opinion that the recommendation of the DPC is not final. It is also evident that the recommendation of the DPC does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable.

It was explained that the 10% quota for constables having outstanding performance will be filled on the basis of State level comparative merits.

There is a three-stage scrutiny before a constable is selected as a Head Constable. The third stage requires the candidate to be sufficiently high in the State Level Comparative Merit of the candidates to be selected under the 10% quota. Therefore, it can never be contended that mere recommendation of the SP at the initial stage is sufficient to claim a right for promotion.

On the contention of Appellant that the subsequent recommendation was also on the very same outstanding performance is concerned, the Court observed that the merits and accolades of the candidates recommended for promotion vary from year to year on a comparative merit scale. The competitive environment differs from year to year. The scrutiny is dynamic and cannot be adjudged on the basis of a previous year’s performance. The Appellant’s accolades may not have made a fit case to be recommended in the year 2004 but the same could make a fit case to be considered in a subsequent year.

“It is the domain of the IG as also the CDPC to analyse, consider and clear the names of the candidates found fit to be promoted in the List B-I for that year and it must best be left to the discretion of the said authorities.”

[Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 64, decided on 19.01.2022]


*Judgment by: Justice PS Narsimha


Counsels

For appellant: Advocate Surender Kumar Gupta

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for transfer of Justice V.K. Tahilramani to Meghalaya High Court.

Office of the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court would be falling vacant shortly consequent upon transfer of Justice A.K. Mittal, Chief Justice of that High Court to Madras High Court.

Collegium resolves to recommend that Justice V.K. Tahilramani, Chief Justice, Madras High Court [PHC: Bombay], be transferred, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Meghalaya High Court.

Upon being requested to send her response in terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, Justice V.K. Tahilramani vide
representation dated 2-09-2019, for reasons stated therein, has requested to reconsider her proposal for transfer to Meghalaya High Court.

On reconsideration, the Collegium is of the considered view that it is not possible to accede to her request. The Collegium, accordingly, reiterates its recommendation dated 28th August, 2019 for transfer of Justice V.K. Tahilramani to Meghalaya High Court.


[Resolution of Collegium dt. 03-09-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Kerala High Court
Appointments & TransfersNews

As the office of the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court would be falling vacant shortly, consequent upon elevation of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice of that High Court to the Supreme Court, in terms of a separate recommendation made by the Collegium today. Therefore, the appointment to that office is required to be made.

Justice S. Manikumar is the senior-most Judge from Madras High Court and has been functioning there since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Justice S. Manikumar is suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.


Collegium Resolution dt. 28-08-2019

Supreme Court of India

 

Appointments & TransfersNews

Against the sanctioned strength of 31 Judges, the Supreme Court of India is presently functioning with 27 Judges, leaving 04 clear vacancies.

The Collegium has discussed names of Chief Justices as well as senior puisne Judges of all High Courts, eligible for elevation to the Supreme Court. The Collegium is of the considered view that at present the following persons are more deserving and suitable in all respects than other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts, for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court of India:

1. Mr Justice Aniruddha Bose,
Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court
(PHC: Calcutta) and

2. Mr Justice A.S. Bopanna,
Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court
(PHC: Karnataka)

The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde, N.V.Ramana, Arun Mishra and R.F. Nariman, JJ., therefore, recommends that Justices Aniruddha Bose and A.S. Bopanna be appointed as Judges in the Supreme Court of India.


Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

[Dated: 12-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of Delhi High Court to be the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat is the senior-most Judge from Delhi High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Justice S. Ravindra Bhat suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation, the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be three Chief Justices from Delhi High Court, which has the special distinction of being the High Court for the national capital.


[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment as Judges of Bombay High Court was made for 10 Advocates, namely:

1. Shri Avinash G. Gharote
2. Shri N.B. Suryawanshi
3. Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh
4. Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah
5. Shri J.R. Shah
6. Shri Madhav Jamdar
7. Shri Anil Kilor
8. Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja
9. Shri Devidas Pangam
10. Shri Milind Narendra Jadhav

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Avinash S. Deshmukh, (2) Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah, (3) J.R. Shah, and (4) Devidas Pangam, (mentioned at
Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 9 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Bombay High Court.

As regards Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for being taken up on receipt of certain information from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Collegium Resolutions

Dated: 25-03-2019

Supreme Court of India