The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday directed the state of Haryana to “take positive action” and accept the court’s recommendation on appointing 13 judicial officers as additional district and sessions judges in the state, “within a period of two weeks from today”.
The high court had made the recommendation on February 23, 2023, and the Haryana government had refused to accept it on September 12.
On Wednesday, a division bench of Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji also ordered that the judicial officers will be entitled to Rs 50,000 each as costs, to be paid by the state, for unnecessarily delaying their promotion and denying them their legitimate right to work on a higher post.
The high court was hearing a petition filed by judicial officer Shikha and other petitioners, who are civil judges (senior division) or chief judicial magistrates in Haryana, who sought quashing of the letter dated September 12, 2023, whereby the state refused to accept the high court’s recommendations. The judicial officers who were not recommended for promotion by the high court also filed a petition challenging the court’s recommendations.
On being issued notice, the Haryana government had opted to take a legal opinion from the Union Ministry of Law and Justice. The rejection was made on the basis of the opinion, on the ground that it was binding upon the state government and the state was not bound to accept the high court’s recommendations.
Further, a fallback was made on Article 233 of the Constitution and Rule 6(1) (a) of the 2007 Rules to hold that the high court was acting arbitrarily in giving its opinion to the governor, and the settled procedure under Article 233 read with Article 309 of the Constitution had not been duly followed while sending the names to the government for promotion.
The bench, on hearing the matter at length, observed that it is the case of the State itself as pleaded in the written statement that having received the high court letter dated March 22, 2023, it had received the letter from advocate Prem Pal on March 31, 2023. Lal raised the objection for the first time that the requirement of 50 per cent marks in the viva voce was not communicated to the candidates, the high court was not competent to fix the minimum cut-off vide its own resolution, the cut-off on the basis of an internal resolution was thus stated to be an illegal and arbitrary act and, therefore, the state government must intervene to stop the injustice.
The high court said that admittedly, the State with great alacrity acted on the said letter, instead of getting back to the high court to consult with it on the 50 per cent cut-off criteria.
On the State of Haryana taking opinion from the central government, the high court bench said, “…The State chose not to get back to the High Court at any point in time…after consulting the Union of India, the State has decided not to accept the recommendations and asked for sending revised recommendations by taking the plea that a modified criteria had been adopted by the High Court without consulting the State Government as per internal resolution dated 30.11.2021 and, therefore, it did not bind the State Government. Uncharitable remarks were also made regarding the High Court acting arbitrarily and that there was a betrayal of trust…”
The Bench further said, “…the whole process was sought to be de-railed on account of a representation filed by a third party element being a district court lawyer who was pushing a certain set of candidates in his objection raised to the State and who had no locus-standi in the matter but the State proceeded to act on the same and went on to consult the Union of India without getting back to the High Court…”.
The bench added that by introducing a “third private party”, “the State has done extreme violence to the selection process and de-railed the same…and the justice delivery system in the State of Haryana has been set back and badly impacted and continues to suffer on account of the fact that the state government showed its proactivity in a case where it was not required and rather than permitting the officers who had been duly recommended, it has apparently sought to push the case of the non-meritorious candidates in spite of the fact that the rule provides otherwise…”.
“The action of the state government on seeking legal opinion of third party is not justified,” the bench asserted.
Citing a Supreme Court judgment in Chandramouleshwar Prasad (supra), the division bench said, “The state government was not within its right to take a different decision and overrule the recommendation of this court on the basis of a meddlesome interloper namely Prem Pal, Advocate who was in no way connected remotely with the selection process.”
The high court also pointed out in the judgment that “another interesting fact which is to be noticed that the unselected candidates had never challenged the said recommendations initially at any stage. Only when the state government rejected the case of the recommended candidates on September 12, 2023 after passing the interim order on September 6, 2023, they chose to challenge the resolution of the full court”.
The decision of the full court cannot be wished away at the hands of the non-recommendees, especially more so when it had been done much before the selection process which was set in motion only on August 24, 2022 for both the states, the high court observed.
The bench further held that it is the duty of the state government to accept the recommendations and to ensure there is no erosion of public interest in the judicial system and it is for the high court to step in and uphold the sanctity of the judiciary and ensure that the delivery system is not adversely affected.
“The letter of Prem Pal is a classic example showing how one of the judicial officer’s case is being vouched apparently for the purposes of seeking promotion which the high court had denied to him. It is in such circumstances being primarily entrusted with the judicial administration in the State and for efficient and due discharge of its responsibilities, the high court had acted to have proper officers in places being the best judge of its requirements,” the bench observed in the order.
Calling it “disastrous” in the context that one of the states has already accepted the said recommendations and 13 judicial officers have already been promoted to the said post in Punjab, the bench added that “to permit the State of Haryana to the contrary would open a pandora box for the high court which has jurisdiction over two states and was striving to follow a unified policy”.
HC highlights pendency of cases in Haryana
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench said that it is a matter of record that Haryana’s inaction in holding back its recommendations has led to an increase in the pendency of cases before the additional district judges in the state from March to December 2023.
Currently, as per figures pointed out by the high court counsel, 2,80,287 cases are pending before the superior judicial courts in Haryana. “It has also been brought to our notice that the pendency in the State of Punjab has gone down since the said State accepted the recommendations of the high court and effectively had put the officers in place by April 2023,” the bench added.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
