November 22, 2024
‘Appointments Only On Advertised Vacancies’: SC Holds 2 Judges To Be Wrongly Appointed
Supreme Court

‘Appointments Only On Advertised Vacancies’: SC Holds 2 Judges To Be Wrongly Appointed

Nov 21, 2023

Last Updated on November 21, 2023 by News Desk

The Supreme Court determined that the method used by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and the High Court in choosing Civil judges (Junior Divisions) in 2013 was incorrect. As a result, the appointments of two judicial officers were deemed irregular.

However, despite this finding, the Court decided against removing the two officers from their positions. This decision was based on their tenure of over ten years of service and the absence of any wrongdoing on their part regarding the irregularities.

A bench consisting of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhansdhu Dhulia presided over the appeals filed against a 2021 decision made by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. This earlier judgment revoked the appointments of the two individuals filing the appeals as Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The High Court, in its judicial capacity, concluded that the appellants’ appointments were unlawful because they were made beyond the advertised vacancies. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the legal standpoint of the High Court, it disagreed with its decision to annul the appointments.

The Supreme Court highlighted two main points:

Firstly, the Court recognized that the appellants had been fulfilling their roles as judicial officers for a decade, and removing them from their positions at this point would not benefit the public interest.

Secondly, there’s no evidence suggesting that the appellants were appointed due to favoritism, nepotism, or any behavior that could be considered blameworthy.

In support of this decision, the Court referenced a recent Constitution Bench ruling in Sivanandan CT and others vs the High Court of Kerala 2023. In that case, the Supreme Court declined to remove specific District Judges in Kerala, despite acknowledging that their appointments were illegal.

The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that these judges had been serving for six years.

Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.