Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenged the selection and appointment of three direct recruit Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Haryana Higher Judicial Service. The petitioner, Raj Kumar Bindlish, alleged that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had not followed any definite procedure in selecting candidates, and that one selected candidate was the son-in-law of a sitting judge of the High Court who did not participate in the selection. The three selected candidates were Mohinder Singh Suller, S.K. Sardana, and Nawab Singh. Out of 65 candidates interviewed between April 24, 1992 and April 21, 1989, the Full Court of the High Court sitting as a selection committee selected these three candidates. The Governor of Haryana appointed them on the recommendation of the High Court. The petitioner contended that the High Court had not adopted any principle in selection. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Registrar of the High Court, it was stated that after a complaint from eighteen advocates, a sub-committee was constituted to examine the desirability of adopting a definite procedure; the sub-committee sought information from other High Courts and thereafter recommended a procedure. The Full Court considered the recommendation and resolved that in future, the suggested procedure would be followed. The selection in question was already completed. Legal issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether the appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution required a definite selection procedure; (2) Whether the selection of the son-in-law of a sitting judge vitiated the appointments; (3) Whether the writ petition should be entertained after the candidates had been serving since 1989. The petitioner relied on C. Ravinchandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457, to argue that judges must maintain strict standards of conduct and rectitude, and that the absence of a proper selection procedure was illegal. The respondents defended the selection, pointing to the subsequent adoption of a procedure for future selections and the lack of any participation by the concerned judge. The Supreme Court reiterated that under Article 233 of the Constitution, appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges is made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court. It is settled practice that the High Court selects members of the Bar and recommends them for appointment. The court approved the standards set in C. Ravinchandran Iyer but held that no tangible illegality was found in the selection. The fact that a son-in-law of a sitting judge was selected, while that judge did not participate, did not render the selection invalid. The High Court had subsequently adopted a definite procedure for future selections, which satisfied the need for transparency. Given that the selections were made in 1989 and the appointees had been continuing in office, the court held that it was not a proper case to unsettle the selection. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Appointment of District Judges - Governor's Consultation with High Court - Constitution of India, Article 233 - The appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judges is made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the State, and the High Court selects members of the Bar for recommendation. The court reiterated this settled practice. Held that the High Court must adopt a procedure conducive to selecting suitable candidates for higher judicial service, but the absence of such procedure at the relevant time did not render the selection illegal. B) Judicial Ethics - Standards of Conduct and Recusal - Relatives of Sitting Judges - Constitution of India, Article 233 - The court referred to C. Ravinchandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457, approving strict standards of conduct and rectitude for judges. In the present case, the son-in-law of a sitting judge was selected, but that judge did not participate in the selection process. Held that this fact alone did not vitiate the selection. C) Service Law - Selection Procedure for Higher Judicial Service - Requirement of Definite Procedure - Constitution of India, Article 233 - The petitioner contended that the High Court had no defined procedure for selecting candidates. The High Court later constituted a sub-committee after receiving a complaint from 18 advocates and adopted a procedure for future selections. Held that the selection in question could not be set aside on that ground, especially since respondents had been appointed in 1989 and were continuing in office, and no tangible illegality was found. D) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Equitable Discretion - Constitution of India, Article 32 - The appointments were made in 1989 and the selected candidates had been serving since then; the court found no tangible illegality. Held that it was not a proper case to unsettle the already completed selection, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of three direct recruit Additional District and Sessions Judges by the High Court was vitiated due to absence of a definite selection procedure; Whether the appointment of a son-in-law of a sitting judge (who did not participate) invalidated the selection; Whether the writ petition should be entertained after long delay.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no tangible illegality was found in the selection and appointment of the three Additional District and Sessions Judges, and that the selection made in 1989 should not be unsettled due to lapse of time and continuance of the appointees in office.
Law Points
- Appointment of District Judges requires consultation with High Court under Article 233
- High Court must adopt fair and transparent procedure for selection
- lack of pre-existing procedure does not invalidate past selections absent tangible illegality
- delay and acquiescence bar interference in appointments
- relatives of sitting judges may be selected if judge recuses and process is fair
- standards of judicial conduct as per C. Ravinchandran Iyer case
