Appointments to the subordinate judiciary cannot be made at the drop of a hat and priority must be on quality over speed, the Bombay High Court recently said [High Court through Registrar General v. Vaijanath Vaze & Anr.]
Hence, the Court on February 27 recalled its earlier directions that had sought a blueprint from the High Court administration for time-bound recruitment of judges to the subordinate judiciary.
The Court was hearing a review petition filed by the Registrar General of the High Court in proceedings arising from a public interest litigation (PIL) by advocate Vaijanath Pandurang Vaze on filling vacancies in the State judiciary.
During the February 27 hearing, a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Sarang V Kotwal spoke at length about the difficulties in securing suitable candidates as judges, pointing to the multi-layered process of screening, written tests, interviews and scrutiny of service records.
“The appointment of judicial officers cannot happen at the drop of a hat. We can not simply pick up people and appoint, fill up the post. We have to bring quality. We cannot just appoint people like you appoint the clerks,” the bench orally remarked.
Justice Dangre recalled her experience on a selection committee for family court judges. A one-and-a-half-year process to fill seven posts culminated in only two candidates actually joining, with the remaining candidates refusing appointments.
“We have to think of the character, the judicial temperament of the persons, when we select candidates. Then you know we get complaints if we get an intemperate judge,” she underscored, stressing that hasty choices can lead to complaints against judges.
The Registrar General sought review of a January 28 order, particularly directions that required the High Court administration to submit a recruitment blueprint for the year 2026.
The Court in that order had sought details of including total number of sanctioned posts in each cadre, vacancies as on January 1, 2026, and the timelines and phases for issuing recruitment advertisements from the civil judge junior division up to the district judges.
In the review petition, the Registrar General argued that these directions travel beyond the scope of judicial review of administrative action. The Registrar General maintained that recruitment processes and timelines fall within the exclusive administrative domain of the High Court, monitored by the Chief Justice and an administrative committee.
It was further submitted that the PIL had effectively served its purpose after amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 and the creation of additional posts.
The bench on February 27 accepted these submissions and allowed the review. It recalled the earlier directions and noted progress in recruitment, including an advertisement for 89 district cadre posts.
The Court also recorded petitioner Vaze’s statement that he had acted bona fide and was satisfied with the present steps.