Date of the Judgment: 12 September 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7781 of 2021)
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a judicial officer be disqualified from appointment to a higher judicial post if they were eligible at the time of application but joined a lower judicial service before being appointed to the higher post? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on whether eligibility should be determined at the time of application or appointment. The Court held that eligibility should be determined at the time of application. This case involves an appeal against a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which had upheld the termination of an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, who delivered a unanimous judgment.
Case Background
The High Court of Judicature at Patna had initiated a recruitment process for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The appellant, an advocate with over seven years of practice, applied for the position before the deadline of 16th September 2016. Due to delays in the selection process, the appellant also applied for and was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttar Pradesh on 16th January 2017.
Subsequently, the selection process for the Additional District and Sessions Judge position in Bihar resumed. The appellant, after obtaining permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, participated in the selection process and was placed at Serial No. 50 in the selection list. He was offered appointment on 7th August 2018 and joined the Bihar Superior Judicial Service on 21st August 2018, after resigning from his post in Uttar Pradesh.
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] on 19th February 2020, which held that judicial officers cannot apply for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the High Court of Judicature at Patna issued a show cause notice to the appellant. The High Court eventually recommended the cancellation of his candidature, which was notified by the Government of Bihar on 17th December 2020. The appellant’s service was terminated on 4th January 2021.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Before 16th September 2016 | Appellant applied for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar. |
| 16th January 2017 | Appellant appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttar Pradesh. |
| 7th August 2018 | Appellant offered appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar. |
| 21st August 2018 | Appellant joined Bihar Superior Judicial Service. |
| 19th February 2020 | Supreme Court judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401]. |
| 18th May 2020 | High Court of Judicature at Patna issued show cause notice to the appellant. |
| 17th December 2020 | Government of Bihar notified the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature. |
| 4th January 2021 | Appellant’s service was terminated. |
| 12th September 2022 | Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant challenged the termination of his service by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination based on the judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401]. The High Court held that since the appellant was a judicial officer at the time of his appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was ineligible for direct recruitment to the post. This decision led to the appellant filing an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of eligibility criteria for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. The primary legal precedent considered by the High Court was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401]. This judgment held that a judicial officer, regardless of their prior experience as an advocate, cannot apply for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
The appellant relied on the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277], which stated that the eligibility of a candidate should be determined on the date of application.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] should not apply to his case.
- He contended that his eligibility should be determined based on the date of his application, when he was an advocate with more than seven years of practice.
- The appellant relied on the judgment in Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277], which supports the view that eligibility should be determined at the time of application.
High Court’s Submissions:
- The High Court argued that the appellant was in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Services when he was appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar.
- The High Court contended that the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] was correctly applied in dismissing the appellant’s petition.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Argument |
|
| High Court’s Argument |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in distinguishing his case from the Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] judgment by emphasizing the timing of his application and his eligibility at that time, relying on the precedent in Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277].
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] is applicable to the facts of the present case, where the appellant was eligible on the date of application but was a judicial officer at the time of appointment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] is applicable to the facts of the present case? | The Court held that the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] is not applicable to the present case because the appellant was eligible on the date of application and was not in the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services at the time of application or selection. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401]: This case was distinguished by the court as the facts of the present case were different. In Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401], the court had held that a judicial officer, regardless of their prior experience as an advocate, cannot apply for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
- Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277]: This case was relied upon by the court. The court held that the eligibility of a candidate should be determined on the date of application.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished |
| Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277] | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] should not apply to his case. | Accepted. The Court held that the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] is not applicable to the present case. |
| Appellant’s submission that his eligibility should be determined based on the date of his application. | Accepted. The Court relied on Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277] to hold that eligibility should be determined on the date of application. |
| High Court’s submission that the appellant was in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Services when he was appointed as an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar. | Rejected. The Court held that the appellant was not in the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services on the date of application or selection. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court distinguished the case of Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401], stating that it was not applicable to the unique facts of the present case, where the appellant was eligible at the time of application.
- The Court relied on the case of Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277], which held that the eligibility of a candidate should be determined on the date of application.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was eligible for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge on the date he applied. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not in the services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services at the time of his application. The court also noted that the appellant had sought permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad before participating in the selection process and before resigning from his post to join the Bihar Superior Judicial Services.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Eligibility at the time of application | 40% |
| Appellant not in Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services at the time of application | 30% |
| Appellant’s diligence in seeking permissions | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that eligibility should be determined at the time of application, as established in Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277]. The Court distinguished the case from Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401], which dealt with a different factual scenario.
The Court considered the unique circumstances of the case, where the appellant had applied for the post when he was eligible, and his subsequent appointment in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services did not change his eligibility for the Bihar post. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the appellant’s ineligibility arose from his status as a judicial officer at the time of appointment.
The Supreme Court stated:
“It could thus be seen that firstly, the appellant was neither in services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services Cadre on the date on which he applied and secondly, nor was he in the services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Officer Cadre on the date on which he was selected.”
“In that view of the matter, we find that the law laid down in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra) is not applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”
“We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the petition.”
There were no minority opinions in this case as the judgment was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
✓ Eligibility for direct recruitment to judicial posts is determined based on the candidate’s status on the date of application.
✓ Subsequent employment in a subordinate judicial service does not disqualify a candidate who was eligible at the time of application.
✓ The judgment clarifies that the ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401] does not apply to cases where the candidate was eligible at the time of application.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the reinstatement of the appellant within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also held that the appellant would be entitled to continuity in service for all purposes, including seniority and terminal benefits, but would not be entitled to emoluments for the period during which he was out of employment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the eligibility of a candidate for direct recruitment to a judicial post should be determined on the date of application. This clarifies the legal position and provides a clear guideline for future cases involving similar issues. The judgment also distinguishes itself from the ruling in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi [(2020) 7 SCC 401], which had created some ambiguity on this point. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle established in Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 277].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s decision and reinstating the appellant. The Court held that the appellant’s eligibility should be determined based on his status at the time of application, not at the time of appointment. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding eligibility for direct recruitment to judicial posts and provides a clear guideline for similar cases in the future.