Delve into the details of a recent legal case where the judiciary’s analysis of judicial eligibility criteria takes center stage. The High Court’s interpretation and application of relevant laws and precedents are crucial in determining the outcome of the case. This blog explores the complexities of judicial eligibility and the significance of the court’s legal analysis in shaping the final decision.
Facts
- High Court of Judicature at Patna issued a show cause notice based on a previous judgment.
- Court ruled in the case of Dheeraj Mor that Judicial Officers cannot apply for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in direct recruitment quota.
- Appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court of Patna which dismissed the writ petition.
- After considering the reply, High Court of Patna recommended cancellation of appellant’s candidature.
- The Government of Bihar notified the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature on 17 December 2020.
- The appellant joined Bihar Superior Judicial Service on 21 August 2018.
- Appellant obtained permission to resign from Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services to join Bihar as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
- Appellant was found meritorious in the selection process for the post of Civil Judge in Uttar Pradesh and was offered appointment on 7 August 2018.
- After obtaining permission, the appellant participated in the selection process for Additional District & Sessions Judge in Bihar and was successful.
- Appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 16 January 2017 in Bihar.
- The selection process for recruitment in Bihar Superior Judicial Services proceeded after appellant’s appointment in Uttar Pradesh.
- Appellant challenged the termination of services based on certain letters issued by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
- The facts leading to the appeal include the appellant’s eligibility as an advocate with more than 7 years of practice applying for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the eligibility of a candidate should be considered on the date of his application, not at any other point in time.
- He challenges the application of the law from the case of Dheeraj Mor to the present case as erroneous.
- The petitioner relies on the judgment from a three-Judge Bench in the case of Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others to support his argument.
- The petitioner contends that the law in Dheeraj Mor does not apply to his case specifically.
- The Division Bench of the High Court applied the law from the case of Dheeraj Mor and dismissed the petition of the appellant.
- The appellant was serving in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Services when appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge.
- No error was found in the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna according to the respondent.
- The respondent argues that the appeal should be dismissed.
Also Read: Medical Negligence and Compensation: A Landmark Decision
Analysis
- The appellant applied in response to an advertisement by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
- He was eligible as a lawyer with over 7 years of experience for direct recruitment.
- During the selection process, he also applied to and was successful in being appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttar Pradesh.
- The present appeal is based on these unique circumstances.
- The appellant was not in the services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services Cadre when he applied or when he was selected.
- The law laid down in the case of Dheeraj Mor is not applicable to the present case.
- The High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition.
- The appellant sought permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad both before participating in the selection process and after being found meritorious to resign from his services and join the Bihar Superior Judicial Services.
Also Read: Remand of Writ Petition for Restoration and Decision on Merits
Decision
- Appellant entitled to continuity in service for all purposes, including seniority and terminal benefits.
- Not entitled to emoluments for period out of employment.
- Pending applications disposed of.
- Appellant directed to be reinstated within two weeks.
- High Court letter dated 4 January 2021 and State of Bihar notification dated 17 December 2020 quashed and set aside.
Case Title: REJANISH K.V Vs. K. DEEPA (2022 INSC 948)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003947 / 2020
