In a groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court weighed the scales of justice, acknowledging the flawed selection process employed by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the High Court in the 2013 appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Divisions). While deeming the appointments of two judicial officers irregular, the court refrained from unseating them, citing their commendable decade-long service and an absence of culpability in the procedural missteps.
A judicial bench, composed of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhansdhu Dhulia, presided over the appeals challenging the 2021 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which nullified the appointments of the two appellants as Civil Judges (Junior Division). The High Court contended that these appointments exceeded the advertised vacancies, a stance the Supreme Court concurred with on legal grounds. However, the Supreme Court diverged from the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the complexity of the case and the public interest in retaining experienced officers.
The apex court underscored the appellants’ ten-year tenure as judicial officers, asserting that displacing them at this juncture would be contrary to public interest. The justices highlighted the appellants’ merit-based selection and the absence of favoritism or nepotism in their appointments. Drawing on a recent Constitution Bench judgment, the court cited the precedent set in Sivanandan CT and others vs High Court of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 658, where it refused to unseat District Judges with six years of service despite illegal appointments.
The genesis of the matter traced back to the 2013 appointment process, where the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission initially advertised eight vacancies. Subsequently, the decision was made to advertise more anticipated vacancies based on a 2011 High Court judgment. The appellants, not originally in the first merit list, were included through this adjustment. While affirming the illegality of appointments exceeding advertised vacancies, the Supreme Court critiqued the High Court’s decision in Shweta Dhingra, finding it in conflict with earlier directives in the Malik Mazhar Sultan case.
The court clarified that vacancies for the next selection process should be anticipated before advertisement, per the Malik Mazhar Sultan ruling. It questioned the necessity of the High Court’s directions in Shweta Dhingra, emphasizing that if such an exercise were needed, it should have transpired before the vacancies were advertised in 2013.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court, while endorsing the High Court’s legal standpoint, admonished its decision to unseat the candidates. It distributed blame among the State Commission, State Government, and the High Court for the procedural lapses, emphasizing the shared responsibility in the flawed appointment process.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
