Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently rejected an application by the Haryana government to allow the state Public Service Commission to conduct the recruitment to the judicial service by modifying the previous order which entrusted the task to a committee comprising three judges of the high court, and others including, Advocate General and Chairperson of Haryana Public Service Commission.

A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that the state government had not placed sufficient material before the court to warrant a deviation from the course of action, pursued since 2007, for over 15 years, including, as recently as by the notification of December 14, 2020.

"Article 234 of the Constitution provides that appointments to the judicial service of a state, other than district Judges, shall be made by the Governor of the state in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf, after consultation with the state Public Service Commission and with the high court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such state," the bench pointed out.

Moreover, court highlighted an urgent need to ensure that the existing 175 vacancies of Junior Civil Judges are filled up at the earliest. 

It ordered the state government to take necessary steps within two weeks to ensure that the recruitment is conducted by a committee consisting of (i) three Judges of the high court nominated by the Chief Justice; (ii) the Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana; (iii) the Advocate General of Haryana; and (iv) the Chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission.

The top court also directed the Public Service Commission to provide all required logistical support in accordance with the past practice followed since 2007.

In its application in the pending civil appeal in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan, the Haryana government said that the recruitment of judicial officers in the Haryana Civil Service had to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951(as applicable to the State of Haryana).

The top court, however, noted that since 2007, the state government had, on the occasion of each recruitment, notified amendments to the Rules so as to provide for the filling up of vacancies in the judicial service under a Committee consisting of the representatives of the high court, the State Government and the Public Service Commission.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on its part, opposed the state government's plea, contending that the process which was being consistently followed should not be deviated from, particularly, because of the fact that the entrustment of the process to the high court would subserve the integrity and independence of the selection process.

Concurring with the high court's submission, the bench pointed out that the order of the top court passed on January 4, 2007 specifically noted the importance of making timely appointments to the district judiciary. 

"This court made a reference to the decision which was arrived at in the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers by which the High Courts were to be entrusted with the role of making appointments to the judicial service. Several States have already ensured the amendment of their Rules framed under Articles 234 and 309 by entrusting the selection process to the High Courts," it said.

The bench further stated that in other states where the work was being conducted under the authority of the Public Service Commission, the work of selection was being supervised by a Committee appointed by the high court. 

While dismissing the application by the Haryana government, the bench said, "The state government has not come before this court seeking a modification of the arrangement by placing objective data which would indicate either the inability of the High Court to perform its task thus far or demonstrating that there have been deficiencies in the process conducted by the High Court".

Case Title: Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr v. U P Public Service Commission & Ors