LexDR KAVITA KAMBOJ versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1136 : 2024 INSC 192 Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors (Civil Appeal Nos 2179-2180 of 2024) 13 February 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud,* CJI, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ] Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration was a challenge to a decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana directing the State of Haryana to take positive action to accept its recommendation vide communication dated 23.02.2023, whereby the names of thirteen in-service judicial officers were recommended for appointment by way of promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. The challenge before the High Court was inter alia to a decision of the State of Haryana vide Letter dated 12.03.2023, whereby the State had decided not to accept the aforesaid High Court recommendation dated 23.02.2023, on the ground that the “settled procedure” under Article 233 read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007 had not been followed. Headnotes Service Law – Promotion – Eligibility Criteria – Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007 – Rule 6(1)(a) r/w. Rule 8 – Recommendation of the High Court that for a candidate seeking promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, an aggregate of 50% marks for both, i.e. in the written test and in the viva voce, would be required so as to render a candidate eligible for promotion – Challenge to: Held: The High Court was correct in prescribing that recruitment by promotion to the Higher Judicial Service should have a minimum of 50% both in the written test as well as in the viva voce independently, for those in-service candidates who were drawn for promotion in the 65% promotion quota – This is because the candidate should not just demonstrate the ability to reproduce their knowledge by answering questions in the suitability test, but must also demonstrate [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1137 Dr Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors both practical knowledge and the application of the substantive law in the course of the interview – In-service candidates seeking recruitment through promotions cannot be considered at par with candidates seeking direct recruitment or with candidates seeking accelerated promotion through a limited competitive test – The three modes of recruitment have been reasonably classified and different requirements have been prescribed for each – As such, what may or may not have been held in respect of the viva voce in direct recruitments may not necessarily apply to the viva voce requirement in recruitments through promotions [Paras 65, 37, 41] Eligibility criteria for Higher Judicial Services: Held: The Higher Judicial Services require the selection of judicial officers of mature personality and requisite professional experience – In-service judicial officers are expected to have a greater familiarity with the law and the procedure based on their experience as judicial officers – While an objective written examination can be the best gauge of the legal knowledge of a candidate, the viva voce offers the best mode of assessing the overall personality of a candidate – The purpose of the interview for officers in that class is to assess the officer in terms of the ability to meet the duties required for performing the role of an Additional District and Sessions Judge – Consequently, there would be a reasonable and valid basis, if the High Court were to do so, to impose a requirement of a minimum eligibility or cut-off both in the written test and in the viva voce separately. [Paras 42, 44] Administrative directions can fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules, when they are silent on a particular point: Held: When the Rules under Article 309 hold the field, these Rules have to be implemented – Where specific provisions are made in the Rules framed under Article 309, it would not be open to the High Court to issue administrative directions either in the form of the Full Court Resolution or otherwise, that are at inconsistent with the mandate of the Rules – On the other hand, in cases such as the one at hand, where the Rules were silent, it is open to the High Court to issue a Full Court Resolution – The Rules being silent, it was clearly open to the High Court to prescribe such a criterion as it did in 2013, when the 50% cut-off was prescribed on aggregate scores and also, in 2021, when the 50% cut-off was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.