Supreme Court upholds Punjab and Haryana High Court order on judicial officer appointments after Haryana government opposition

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of appeals challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order of December 2023 which held that recommendations on appointment of judicial officers were binding on the Haryana government..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra concluded that the Haryana government erred in finding fault with the High Court order and in terming the exercise of its powers arbitrary."We have come to the conclusion that the State was in error in finding fault with the High Court and coming to a conclusion that exercise of power by the High Court was arbitrary," the Court said..The High Court had also directed that 13 officers who were recommended for appointment as additional district and sessions judges (ADJs) be appointed within two weeks..In November 2021, the High Court had made modifications in the criteria for filling up these vacancies. The Haryana government asserted that since consulting with the State government to amend the rules was mandatory and such consultation did not occur, the government was not bound to accept the recommendations of the High Court's selection committee..The vacancies under the 65 per cent quota are filled by way of regular promotion. 10 per cent of seats are filled through a limited competitive examination. In the former, merit-cum-seniority plays a role, whereas it is only merit which counts for the latter. .Senior Advocates PS Patwalia, Shyam Divan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for candidates who had not been recommended for appointment as a result of the modification.Patwalia argued that the decision to impose a minimum cut-off for candidates applying under the 65 per cent quota lacked rational justification. He pointed out that no such requirement existed for candidates applying under the 10 per cent quota in the limited competitive examination and that there was no prescribed cut-off for candidates seeking direct recruitment as ADJs.Divan emphasised on the need to scrutinise marksheets for any signs of prejudice. He argued that all candidates had the legitimate expectation that norms finalised in the full court proceeding of 2013 will be followed and that the alteration of that norm has resulted in substantial injustice.Sankaranarayanan stated that public interest would not be served by affirming the view of the High Court both on the administrative and the judicial side..Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta appeared for the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He argued that not having a cut-off increases mediocrity, as a candidate can fare well in the written exam, but poorly in the viva voce. "It is unbelievable that a civil judge appears before senior most judges of the High Court and does not put his best foot forward just because he has fared well in written examination," Gupta argued..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government of Haryana, stressed on the necessity of a collaborative approach between the judiciary and the executive, and alleged arbitrariness in setting minimum marks for interviews..The Court said that the limited competitive exam could not be equated with the channel of promotion for in-service judicial officers."The purpose of a limited competitive examination was to provide an avenue for in-service officers to compete for accelerated promotions on a higher benchmark strictly based on merit. For normal promotions it is merit-cum-seniority, but for the 10 per cent quota, it is only merit," it stated.Accordingly, the Court concluded that the submission of unsuccessful candidates that there was no legal basis to provide minimum cut-offs since they were absent in the limited competitive exam, could not hold ground..Further, the Court said that its decision in the All India Judges Association case did not prohibit the High Court from implementing a cut-off if there are compelling reasons."In service, judicial officers are expected to have greater familiarity with the rules etc. High Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that apart from having substantive knowledge of the law, the in-service judicial officers must display communication and other skills which emanate at the time of interview," it said.Thus, the Court determined that the High Court was correct to introduce separate cut-offs for the written test and the interview..It concluded that the High Court's exercise of power was not arbitrary and that any differences between the High Court and the State government should have been resolved through a consultative process. As a result, it dismissed all the appeals.