Summary
The Supreme Court rejected Haryana’s request to shift junior judicial recruitment to the Public Service Commission alone. The established joint selection arrangement, maintained through rule amendments since 2007, could not be displaced without consultation with the High Court and cogent objective justification. The State was directed to take necessary steps within two weeks for recruitment to 175 vacancies through the specified joint committee, with logistical support from the Commission.
Issues
- Whether Haryana established grounds to replace the joint judicial recruitment arrangement with selection by the Commission alone.
- What steps were required to fill the 175 existing Junior Civil Judge vacancies.
Provisions considered
- Article 234, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional requirement of rules framed after consultation with the High Court and Public Service Commission informed the rejection of the proposed unilateral departure. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Part C and Rule 7B, Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, as applicable to HaryanaPart C permitted yearly alterations, and successive substitutions of Rule 7B supported the joint selection committee. The State could not rely on the original Commission-centred provisions while disregarding that established amended arrangement. (¶¶ 9, 10, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24)
Held
- The earlier orders did not require exclusive recruitment by the High Court. The operative arrangement instead involved High Court nominees, the State and the Public Service Commission, supported by successive rule amendments and followed for over fifteen years. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24)
- Any proposed departure required consultation with the High Court and cogent material based on objective data. The High Court’s domain knowledge and understanding of judicial-service needs supported its involvement. The State produced no evidence of inability or deficiencies justifying removal of that involvement. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- The State had to take necessary steps within two weeks for recruitment to the 175 vacancies through a committee comprising three High Court Judges nominated by the Chief Justice, the Chief Secretary, Advocate General and Commission Chairperson. The Commission was to supply logistical support consistent with past practice; the Court did not require completion of the entire selection within two weeks. (¶¶ 26, 27)
Result
State’s interlocutory application dismissed. Necessary recruitment steps directed within two weeks through the specified joint committee, with Public Service Commission logistical support.