RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 416 · Decided: 12-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
[2023] 5 S.C.R. 416
416
RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR.
v.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 432 of 2023)
MAY 12, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Judiciary: Higher judiciary – District judges – Appointment
– Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge –
Rules 2005 prescribed 65% posts in the cadre of District Judge to
be filled by promotion amongst Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
principle of merit cum seniority and passing of a suitability test –
Issuance of select list by the High Court for promotion of Senior
Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge (65% quota) – Petitioners
not recommended for promotion even though having higher marks
than the ones promoted – Writ petition by the petitioners challenging
the select list as being violative of Art. 14 and r. 5 of the 2005 Rules
– Issuance of Notice – However, despite being served with the copy
of the petition, the State Government vide notification dated
18.04.2023 notified the appointment of 68 candidates, subject to
the ultimate outcome of the writ petition – Held: High Court
considered the merit only for the purpose of achieving the benchmark
and thereafter switched to the seniority-cum-merit and thereby gave
a go-by to the principle of merit-cum-seniority – Method adopted
by the High Court contrary to the observations made by this Court
in All India Judges’ Association’s case and also contrary to the 2005
Rules and the Recruitment Notice – High Court adopted a wrong
method – Thus, the impugned Selection List issued by the High Court
and the subsequent Notification issued by the State Government
granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge illegal and
contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the
decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association
and Ors.’s case, thus, not sustainable – State Government could
have waited till the next date of hearing by this Court – At present
the respective promotees have not assumed their posting on the
promotional post, they have been sent for training, thus, the
further implementation and operation of the Select List issued by
the High Court and the subsequent Notification issued by the State
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
Government is stayed – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 32 – Gujarat
State Judicial Services Rules, 2005.
All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India
and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712 – relied
upon.
B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors.
(1998) 6 SCC 720 : [1998] 3 SCR 782; State of Kerala
and Anr. vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 310
: [1976] 1 SCR 906; Shriram Tomar and Anr. vs.
Praveen Kumar Jaggi and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 736 :
[2019] 6 SCR 590; Manoj Parihar and Others vs. State
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. SLP (C) No. 11039 of
2022 decided on June 27, 2022; C.P. Kalra vs Air India
(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454; Hemani Malhotra Vs. High
Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : [2008] 5 SCR 1066;
V.K. Srivastava and Ors. vs. Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 77 : [2008] 13 SCR
24; Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. vs. Samyut
Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 335 :
[2009] 15 SCR 936 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1998] 3 SCR 782
referred to
Para 4.2
[1976] 1 SCR 906
referred to
Para 4.2
[2019] 6 SCR 590
referred to
Para 4.2
(1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454
referred to
Para 4.4
[2008] 5 SCR 1066
referred to
Para 4.9
[2008] 13 SCR 24
referred to
Para 7 (ii)
[2009] 15 SCR 936
referred to
Para 8.8
[2002] 2 SCR 712
relied on
Para 8.2, 8.3, 8.4,
8.5, 9, 10
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 432
of 2023.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR. v. HIGH
COURT OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Basant R., Sr. Adv., Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms. Dharita Purvish
Malkan, Alok Kumar, Deepak Mani Tripathi, Nayan Gupta, Ms. Deepa
Gorasia, Ajit Rao, Saudagar Singh, Ms. Rumii Chanda, Advs. for the
Petitioners.
Dushyant Dave, S.V. Raju, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs.,
Sandeep Kumar Jha, Aakshat Malpani, Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Aditya
Koshy Roy, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom
Raghuvanshi, Tushar Arora, Ms. VP Singh, Ms. Akanksha Rathore,
Aditya Choksi, Arpit Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. By way of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Consti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.