Before adverting to the two legal issues which have been addressed by Shri Rakesh Dahiya in assailing the impugned judgment and order, we consider it appropriate to briefly narrate the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition and now the appeal arising therefrom. The Punjab & Haryana High Court on 18.05.2007 issued a notification for the selection/recruitment of 22 officers in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar, out of which, 14 were of general category, 5 of the scheduled caste and 3 of the backward class. It is in the above factual background that the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking his appointment against the 14 post of general category candidate, inter alia, on the allegation that the said post could not be kept vacant, more particularly, in an arbitrary manner. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, has argued that though he is conscious that the appellant by selection itself has not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed, nonetheless, his right for appointment cannot be C.A. A simple reading of the above paragraph would reveal that though it is up to the employer or the State to fill up all the notified vacancies or to keep all of them or any of them vacant but it does not mean that the employer/State can act arbitrarily in not filling up those posts and the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be a bona fide one supported by appropriate reasons. The respondents, in order to justify the non-appointment of the appellant on the 14 vacancy, submitted that the notification/advertisement dated 18.05.2007 advertised 22 posts for direct recruitment in the higher judicial service, out of which 14 were meant to be filled up by general category candidates but only 13 selected general category candidates were appointed. Accepting the recommendations of the Committee, out of the 14 general category posts, 5 officers of the Fast Track Court were adjusted, thus leaving only 9 to be filled up as per selection. The third preference was to be given to the members of the Bar for direct appointment as Fast Track Court judges and that they may be continued against the regular post if the Fast Track Court C.A. Another direction was that all those who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the Bar under the Fast Track Court Scheme would be entitled to be appointed to the regular cadre of the higher judicial services of the respective States in the manner C.A. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it can be noticed that initially 14 general category vacancies within the direct quota were advertised, out of which, 5 were filled up by absorption of the Fast Track Court judges in terms of the directions contained in the Brij Mohan Lal (1) & (2) (supra). In view of the reasoning given by the respondents for appointing only 13 selected candidates leaving the appellant who was at Sl. This apart, as may be noticed that the procedure for selection of superior/higher judicial service officers by direct recruitment from the Bar was initiated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court way back in the year 2007 and now we are in the year 2023 thereby meaning that 16 years have passed by in between. (HRISHIKESH ROY)………………………..
Supreme Court Judgment on 16-Year Delay in Appointment of Superior Judicial Service Officers
