JUDGES: Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian
JUDGEMENT DATE: 04/09/2020
People who were delegated as District Judges by the method of direct enrolment in the Tamil Nadu state Judicial Service have recorded a writ request looking for the accompanying reliefs:
- Issue a Writ in the idea of a Writ of Certiorari documented Mandamus or some other suitable Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, to call for records identifying with the last rundown of names suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for the arrangement as Judges of Madras High Court and subdue the equivalent to the extent that it identifies with the names of the Respondents in this and thus direct the Hon’ble Collegium if the Madras High Court to consider the names of the Petitioners additionally for the arrangement as High Court Judges;
- Issue a writ in the idea of a Writ of Mandamus or some other proper Writ, Order or Orders, Directions, guiding the Respondents to restore the last rundown of names for the arrangement as Judges of High Court, Madras suggested by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Madras to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
Further, the current writ appeal court gave notice limited uniquely to one inquiry.
CONTENTIONS (FROM PETITIONER’S SIDE):
The Petitioner complaint is that in spite of being the senior-most in the framework of District Judges, they have been neglected and their youngsters presently prescribed for height to the High Court as Judges. This, as per the Petitioners was finished by the Collegium of the High Court exclusively on the use of Explanation (an) under Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Contention of the Petitioner is that to decide the qualification of an individual sub-statement (an) and (b) of condition (2) of Article 217 along with Explanation ought to be applied all the while.
Further, the applicant needs the experience picked up by them as backers to be clubbed along with the administration delivered by them as Judicial Officers, for deciding their qualification.
The Supreme Court in its discoveries depended on the standards of the three-part seat of the Supreme Court.
With the end goal of Article 232(2), an Advocate must be proceeding by and by for at the very least 7 years as on the off date and furthermore at the hour of arrangement as District Judge. Individuals from Judicial Service having 7 years encounters of training before they joined the administration of those having a consolidated understanding of 7 years as attorney and individual from the legal executive, are not qualified to apply for direct enlistment as District Judge, and
The choice of Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature of Patna maintaining the qualification of a Judicial Officer to apply for the post of District Judge by the method of Direct enrolment, don’t set some hard boundaries accurately and subsequently, overruled.
Further, the Supreme Court in its discoveries expressed that it is obvious from the language of Article 217 that clause(1) simply recommends the strategy for arrangement and the age up to which a nominee can hold office. Condition (2) completes two things. To begin with, it specifies the capability for an arrangement under the 2 sub-clauses (an) and (b). At that point, it specified the technique for retribution such capability under the 2 appendages of the Explanation.
The Court expressed that it will be unfair to permit the advantage just to an individual who held a legal official and later turned into a backer, doesn’t engage us. Truth be told, Article 217(2) doesn’t ensure anybody with the option to be named as a judge of the High Court.
In a manner individual holding a legal official is better positioned, as he is guaranteed a vocation movement subsequent to being put in something like a transport line. There is no confirmation of an Advocate.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court expressed that we are of the considered view that the case of the writ applicants is entirely indefensible and the writ request is confounded.
The writ petition is excused.
Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr vs High Court of Judicature, (2016) 9 SCC 313: (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 606.