RAJ KUMAR BINDLISH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 29-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
RAJ KUMAR BINDLISH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 29, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGH!R AHMAD 
AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 233. 
A 
B 
Additional District and Sessions Judges-Appointment of-Procedure C 
for-Haryana Higher Judicial Servic~Selection of members of Bar as Addi-
tional District and Sessions Judges-Selection of son-in-law of one of the 
sitting Judges-Judge not participating in selection-Writ challenging appoint-
menf-Held in view of the definite procedure adopted for selection appoint-
ment in question could not be set at naught-Since long period has elapsed 
after appointment unsettling the selection already made held not D 
prope~ven otherwise no tangible illegality found in appointment-Writ 
challenging appointment dismissed.. 
Judicial discipline-iudge-Need for maintaining strict standards of 
conduct and rectitude emphasised. 
C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., [1995] 5 
sec 457' referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 68 of 
1990. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Ravindra Bana for the Petitioners. 
l.S. Goyal and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the State. 
Mahabir Singh, Sunil Gupta and P.N. Puri for the Respondent Nos. 
2&5. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard counsel on both sides. 
77 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
8 
c 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to the 
selection of three direct recruit members of the Bar as Additional District 
and Sessions Judges under the Haryana Higher Judicial Service. Mohinder 
Singh suller, S.K. Sardana and Nawab Singh were selected by the Full 
Court of the High Court sitting as selection committee; they were ap-
pointed as Additional District and Session Judges by the Governor of 
Haryana on the recommendation made by the High Court of Punjab aad 
Haryana. Out of 65 candidates who appeared for the interview conducted 
between April 20, 1989 and April 21, 1989, the above three condidates came 
to be selected by the High Court. We are informed and it is not in dispute 
that the entire High Court sat as a selection committee, interviewed the 
candidates and recommended three candidates for appointment as Addi-
tional District and Sessions Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution. 
Son-in-law of one of the sitting Judges was selected. The learned Judge did 
not participate in the selection process. Under Article 233 of the Constitu-
tion, the appointment of Additional District & Sessions Judge is made by 
D the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising 
the jurisdiction in relation to the said State. Therefore, it is settled practice 
in all the Stales that the respective High Court exercises the jurisdiction 
and power in selecting the members of the Bar for appointment as Addi-
tional District and Sessions J udgcs and accordingly recommendations are 
made to the Governor, who on due compliance appoints them as such. 
E 
It is contended by the learned counsel for this petitioner that in view 
of the law laid down by this Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. 
Bhattacharjee & Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 457 in paragraphs 21 to 23 it is now 
settled law that a Judge of a High Court is required to keep the strict 
F 
standards of conduct and rccritudc. We approve of it and feel that it needs 
no restructuring. The candidates who seek selection to higher judicial 
services are normally feeder source from service candidates for appoint-
ment as Judges of High Court from the service. High Court are required 
to adopt that procedure which would be conclusive to achieve the said 
objects. It is contended for the petitioner that the High Court had not 
G adopted any principle in selecting the condidates. Therefore, a procedure 
which is conducive to achieve the above subject requires to be adopted in 
selecting the members of the Bar for appointment as Additional District 
and Sessions Judges. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the 
High Court, it is stated that after the complaint from eighteen advocates 
H was received by the Registrar of the High Court, a sub-Committee was 
R.K. BINDLISHv. STATE 
79 
constituted to look into the desirability to adopt a definite procedure to A 
+ select candidates. Pursuant thereto a request was made to all the other 
High Courts to know the procedure they have adopted and are following. 
The sub-committee after 

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