Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the appointment of two retired district judges as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court. Appointment for less than two years was valid because they would attain the constitutional retirement age of 62 before completing two years. Article 217(2)(a) required ten years of holding judicial office, without requiring continued service when the appointment notification issued. The Court also urged expedition and definite timelines in the judicial appointments process.
Issues
- Whether Additional Judges could be appointed for less than two years because they would attain 62 earlier.
- Whether retirement from the subordinate judiciary before notification made otherwise qualified candidates ineligible.
- Whether S.P. Gupta and Shri Kumar Padma Prasad invalidated these appointments.
Provisions considered
- Article 224, Constitution of IndiaThe maximum two-year term remained subject to the age limit of 62; a shorter appointment ending at that age was valid. (¶¶ 9, 14, 15)
Held
- S.P. Gupta’s criticism of unjustified short extensions had to be read in context. It did not forbid an appointment lasting less than two years because the appointee would reach 62 earlier. Indeed, that decision recognized that even an appointment expressed to last two years ends upon attaining that age. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The words “has ... held” judicial office for at least ten years in Article 217(2)(a) prescribe the requisite experience. They do not additionally require the candidate to hold judicial office on the date the Article 224 notification issues. Both respondents had the required experience and were in service when recommended. (¶¶ 6, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Shri Kumar Padma Prasad concerned whether the offices previously held were judicial offices belonging to the State judicial service. Its reference to a subsisting office described the nature of the office; it did not decide that a qualified retired judicial officer was ineligible for appointment. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Undue delay at the recommendation, executive and approval stages frustrates the object of Article 224, reduces the effective tenure of judicial officers and leaves candidates uncertain. The Court emphasized definite timelines at each stage and greater expedition in discharging the constitutional responsibility of appointment. (¶¶ 27, 28)
Result
Writ petition dismissed. Challenge to the notification appointing the two Additional Judges rejected, with observations urging timely judicial appointments.