Allahabad High Court dismisses judicial officers' plea seeking inclusion in UPHJS Suitability Test 2020

A division bench of the Allahabad High Court recently refused to interfere with the High Court committee's decision to include the names of only those Civil Judges (Senior Division) who have completed three years in service as of December 31, 2021 for the suitability test, 2020 for promotion to UP Higher Judicial Services.

A list was issued by the High Court committee on May 30 containing the names of 150 eligible judicial officers for the suitability test, 2020. The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi refrained from interfering with the same stating that the same could not be done by the Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Court further opined that the Selection and Appointment Committee took a reasoned decision keeping into consideration the vacancies occurring up to December 31, 2021 and it felt not proper to go beyond that date to fix any date to determine the qualifying service in Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre for consideration of their promotion to Higher Judicial cadre.

"The Committee was also of the opinion that by inclusion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) who have not completed three years on the said post would result in higher number of the Courts of Civil Judge (Senior Division) falling vacant and this would create a situation where the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) will collapse owing to huge number of vacant Court," the bench added.

Furthermore, Court stressed that 'in effect' the petition was moved seeking implementation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India and others, (2002), however, in that judgment itself, the top court had restrained any other court from entertaining the proceedings for implementation those directions.

Court highlighted paragraph 40 of the judgment of the Top Court which stated, "any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceeding if any for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them.”

In December 2020, the High Court initiated the process of filling up vacancies in the Higher Judicial Service for the recruitment year 2020. 98 (87 fresh+11backlog) vacancies were advertised to be filled by the eligible Advocates under the 25% quota provided in Rule 6 (ii) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule 1975.

On May 30, 2022 a notice was issued by the High Court stating that the suitability test – 2020 for promotion of officers in U.P. Nyayik Seva to UPHJS will be held on June 11. A list was also issued containing the names of 150 judicial officers eligible for the suitability test-2020.

UP Judicial Services Association along with 39 other judicial officers moved the instant plea before the high court seeking a direction allowing them to appear for the suitability test 2020.

The plea was moved mainly on two grounds. The petitioners claimed that the eligibility list published on May 30 should have consisted of 860 candidates in view of Rule 20 (2) of Rules of 1975 and there should not have been any eligibility condition of 3 years in service as of December 31, 2021.

The petitioners questioned the number of vacancies for the judicial officer cadre claiming that as the quota of direct recruitment as provided in Rule 6 (ii) of the Rules of 1975 is 25%, a total of 348 vacancies would be available in the recruitment year 2020 for HJS.

Basis this, they alleged that after deducting 11 posts of backlog quota from 65% of posts i.e. 226 posts, a total of 215 posts out of 348 vacancies of Higher Judicial Services, which occurred in the recruitment year 2020, are to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division).

The petitioners also questioned the fixation of the cut of date as December 31, 2021 and imposition of the condition of having completed three years’ service by the same date stating that the same violates Rule 5 (a) of the Rules of 1975 as it has not been provided as an eligibility condition in the aforesaid Rule.

They argued that the promotions are to be made from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of merit – cum – seniority and passing the suitability test under Rule-5 (a) of the Rules of 1975, without any reference to the length of their service.

To be noted, Rule 5A of the Rules 1975, violation of which the petitioners were claiming, was framed in furtherance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association.

The plea was opposed by the counsel representing the High Court who contended that the petitioners could not move the writ petition for two reasons. First, the petitioner judicial officers could not seek relief on behalf of the remaining Civil Judges (Senior Division), who chose not to file a Writ Petition, and second that the instant writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus was not maintainable.

The second objection was refuted by the petitioners' counsel stating that the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari quashing two resolutions passed by the Full Court and the Selection and Appointment Committee respectively and the Writ of Mandamus was sought to the opposite parties to hold all the remaining Civil Judges (Senior Division), including the petitioners, as eligible for appearing in U. P. Higher Judicial Service Suitability Test 2020 only as a consequence of issuance of the Writ of Certiorari.

Though Court agreed with the first objection raised by the counsel for the High Court, it did not accept the second objection. Court said that a Writ of Mandamus can be claimed as a consequential relief to the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

However, Court clarified that while deciding the petition for issuance of Certiorari, Court is limited to examining the decision-making process by examining whether the decision-making process suffers from any illegality or infirmity. Therefore, finding no illegality in the decision of the High Court committee, Court dismissed the instant writ petition with the aforesaid observations.

Case Title: Up Judicial Services Association Thru. Its Secy. General Harendra Bahadur Singh And 39 Others v. State Of Up and Another