Apex Court issues Notice, on Seven Judicial Officers’ plea from UP seeking reconsideration of their candidature for appointment to Allahabad HC
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Apex Court has issued notice on a petition filed by seven Judicial Officers from Utter Pradesh challenging their non-inclusion in Supreme Court Collegium recommendations dated August 14, 2020.
The petitioners submit that their names were recommended by the High Court Collegium, but not considered by the Supreme Court collegium which only recommended Judge Subhash Chand who is from the same batch.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde has issued a notice to the Secretary general of Supreme Court and Centre on a plea by seven district judges o utter Pradesh challenging the decision to not include their names as part of the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation dated August 14, 2020.
It is avered in the petition that “an advertisement was issued in the year 2000 inviting applications for direct recruitment against 38 vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judges in U. P. These 38 vacancies were pertaining to the year 1998, for which process of appointment was initiated in the year 2000. The determination of 38 vacancies of H.J.S was put to challenge by the promotee judicial officers and the matter of determination of above stated vacancies ultimately came up before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Srikant Tripathi’s case and consequently, every determination was made and direct recruitment vacancies were held to be 38, but it was put to challenge before Hon’ble Division Bench Of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in case of U. P Judicial officers Association, which was decided on 25/08/2004, wherein, only 24 appointments as against advertised 38 vacancies were permitted for direct recruitment”
The petition filed through Advocate-on Record, Aruna Gupta, and states that though their names were recommended by the High Court collegium, they were not considered by the Supreme Court collegium.
Mentioning that, the petitioners appointment was not considered stating that they had not completed “10 years” of holding judicial office.It is submitted that
“The substantive appointment of Respondent No. 3 has been computed with effect from 04/01/2007 for the purpose of determining the period of 10 years of holding judicial office which is the requirement for appointment of Judge in High Court under Article 217 of Constitution of India and the substantive appointment of Petitioners and 2 others mentioned above with effect from 04/01/2007, has not been computed for the purpose of determining the period of 10 years of holding of judicial office which is the requirement for appointment of Judge in High Court under Article 217 of Constitution of India. Thus, the recommendation of the name of Respondent No. 3 for his appointment as Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, who was given substantial appointment in Higher Judicial Service with effect from 04/01/2007 with the Petitioners and 2 others mentioned above and non-recommendation of names of the Petitioners and 2 others mentioned above who were also given substantial appointment in the Higher Judicial Service with effect from 04/01/2007 along with Respondent No. 3 despite being equally placed with Respondent No. 3, for their appointment as Judge in Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad by Collegium of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held on 14th of August, 2020 has resulted in gross violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
It is averred in the plea that all the petitioners are from the same batch of the utter Pradesh Higher Judicial Services as that of Subhash Chand.
The plea states that there was a gap or a “break” in Chandd’s judicial service and that his services at the UP Nyayik Sewa cannot be included for the purpose of computing the period of (10) years of holding of a judicial office, as provided under Article 217 (2) (a) of Constitution of India.
The petitioners have also cited the huge pendency of cases at the High Court and how more judges are needed to tackle the case pendency.To substantiate this, th e plea cites Bombay High Court case whereby 3 judicial officers who had crossed the prescribed age limit of 58.5 years of age had been appointed as Judges to meet the huge pendency of cases.
The petitioners have now prayed for the Court to direct that they also be considered for elevation as Allahabad High Court,particulary since they were also appointed to the judicial services with effect from 2007 in the same batch as judge Subhash Chand who has been recommended on August 14.
