RENU & ORS. versus DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 12-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 2 S.C.R. 537 
RENU & ORS. 
v. 
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 979 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2014 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
A 
B 
c 
Art. 32 - Writ of quo warranto - Appointment to public 
office - Held: Before a person can effectively claim a writ of 
quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in 
question is a public office and is held by a usurper without 
legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry 0 
as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has 
been made in accordance with law or not -- For issuance of 
writ of quo warranto, the court has to satisfy that the 
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person 
holding the post has no right to hold it. 
E· 
Arts. 14 and 16 - Public employment - Held: 
Transparency in public· employment is an important 
requirement -- Advertisement must specify the number of 
posts available for selection and recruitment -- The 
qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts and 
F 
schedule of recruitment process should be published with 
certainty and clarity as also the rules/procedure under which 
the selection is likely to be undertaken -- Any appointment 
even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting 
applications is in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 and even if the 
G 
names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment 
Exchange, in addition thereto, it is mandatory on the part of 
employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates 
from open market. 
537 
H 
538 
SUPREME ·coURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Arts'. 229 and 235 rlw Arts. 14 and 16 - Appointments of 
staff in High Courts and courts subordinate thereto - Held: 
Appointments in judicial institutions must be made on the 
touchstone of equality of opportunity enshrined in Art. 14 rlw 
Art. 16 and under no circumstance any appointment which is 
B illegal should be saved -- Employment whether of Class IV, 
Class Ill, Class II or any other class in High Courts or courts 
subordinate to it, fall, within the definition of "public 
employment" - Such an employment, therefore, has to be 
made under rules and orders of competent authority - Power 
C of appointment granted to the Chief Justice under Art. 229 (1) 
is subject to Art. 16 (1), which guarantees equality of 
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment 
- As a safeguard, the Constitution has also recognized that 
in the internal administration of High Court, no. other power, 
except the Chief Justice should have domain - In order to 
D enable a judicial intervention, it would require only a very 
strong and convincing reason to show that this power has 
been abused. 
Art.229 - Appointment to posts in High Court and courts 
E subordinate thereto - Held: High Court is a constitutional and 
an autonomous authority subordinate to none - Therefore, 
nobody can undermine the constitutional authority of High 
Court and, as such, Supreme Court can only advise the High 
Court that if its rules are not in consonance with the philosophy 
of the Constitution, the same may be modified and no 
F appointment in contravention thereof should be made - It is 
necessary that there is strict compliance with appropriate 
Rules and the employer is bound to adhere to the norms of 
Arts. 14 and 16 before making any recruitment - In order to 
control the menance of adhocism methodology to make 
G appointments in High Courts and courts subordinate thereto 
suggested and directions given in this regard -- High Courts 
may also examine the desirability of centralized selection of 
candidates for subordinate courts, and to formulate the rules 
to carry out the purpose - Constitutional law - Independence 
H of judiciary. 
RENU & ORS. v. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS 539 
HAZARI & ANR. 
In the instant appeal arising out of a dispute 
A 
regarding continuity of employees appointed on Class IV 
posts in courts subordinate to Delhi High Court, on ad 
hoc basis for 89 days and the term extended from time 
to time, the Court took cognizance of perpetual 
complaints regarding irregularities and illegalities in 
recruitment of staff in subordinate courts throughout the 
B 
·country and in order to ensure the feasibility of 
centralizing these recruitments, issued notice to 
Registrar Generals of all the High Courts to file response 
mainly on two points: (i) why the recruitment be not c 
centralized

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