DHEERAJ MOR versus HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 19-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
161
DHEERAJ MOR
v.
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(Civil Appeal No. 1698 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts.233-235 – Interpretation of
Art.233 – Eligibility of members of subordinate judicial service for
appointment as District Judge against the quota reserved for bar
members by way of direct recruitment – Petitioners who are in judicial
service inter alia claimed that there are two sources of recruitment
u/Art.233(2)- from judicial service and from the bar; thus, a person
in judicial service with 7 years practice at the bar before joining
service (or combined with service as a judicial officer), can compete
with members of the bar (with 7 or more years’ practice), for direct
recruitment, in the quota earmarked to be filled by such advocates
– Matter referred by Division Bench of Supreme Court – Answering
the reference, Held: Per Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ. –
Members in the judicial service of the State can be appointed as
District Judges by way of promotion/limited competitive examination
– For the purpose of Art.232(2), an advocate continuing in practice
for not less than 7 years as on the cut-off date and at the time of
appointment as District Judge can be appointed as District Judge
by way of direct recruitment if he is not already in the judicial service
of the Union or a State – Members of judicial service having 7
years’ of practice before joining service (or combined with service
as a judicial officer) are not eligible to apply for direct recruitment
as a District Judge – Rules framed by High Court prohibiting judicial
service officers from staking claim to the post of District Judge
against the posts reserved for Advocates by way of direct
recruitment, are not ultra vires and are in conformity with Arts.14,
16 & 233 – In cases where in-service incumbents were appointed
by way of direct recruitment from bar (in view of various interim
orders passed by Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor and other cases,
though later vacated), in view of dismissal of the writ petitions filed
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 161
161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
by judicial officers, they cannot continue as District Judges – To
be reverted to their original post – In case their right in channel for
promotion had already ripened, and their juniors were promoted,
High Court to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing
rules – Per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Supplementing) – Under Art.233,
a judicial officer, regardless of her or his previous experience as
an Advocate with seven years’ practice can not apply, and compete
for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge – Her/
his chance to occupy that post would be through promotion, in
accordance with Rules framed u/Art.234 and proviso to Art.309 –
Exclusion- by the rules, from consideration of judicial officers, to
the post of District Judges, in the quota earmarked for advocates
with the requisite standing, or practice, conforms to the mandate of
Arts. 233-235, and the rules are valid – Service Law – Higher
Judicial Service – Interpretation of Statutes.
Constitution of India – Arts. 233(1), 234, 235 – Held: Per
Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ. – Governor of a State is the
authority for the purpose of appointment, promotion, posting and
transfer – Eligibility is governed by Rules framed u/Arts. 234 &
235 – Per S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Supplementing) – Governor of a
State has the authority to make “appointments of persons to be,
and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State –
While so appointing, the Governor is bound to consult the High
Court – Art. 233 (1) cannot be construed as a source of appointment;
it merely delineates as to who is the appointing authority – In matters
relating to initial posting, initial appointment, and promotion of
District Judges, the Governor has the authority to issue the order;
thereafter it is up to the High Court, by virtue of Art.235, to exercise
control and superintendence over the conditions of service of such
District Judges – Service Law – Higher Judicial Service.
Constitution of India – Art. 233(2) – Eligibility of judicial
officers to compete as against the post of District Judge by way of
direct recruitment – Participation in selection process vis-a-vis
appointment – Plea of petitioners placing reliance on Vijay Kumar
Mishra & Anr. v. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. reported as
[2016] 3 SCR 806 in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.