Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the recruitment of the appellant to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar. The appellant, an advocate with over seven years of practice, applied for the position in response to an advertisement issued by the High Court of Judicature at Patna prior to 16 September 2016. During the pendency of the selection process, he applied for and was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Uttar Pradesh on 16 January 2017. Subsequently, with permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, he participated in Bihar's selection process, which included written examinations and an interview, and was selected, ranking 50th in the list. He joined the Bihar Superior Judicial Service on 21 August 2018 after resigning from the Uttar Pradesh service. However, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, delivered on 19 February 2020, which held that judicial officers cannot apply for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, the High Court of Patna issued show cause notices and later terminated his services via a letter dated 4 January 2021. The appellant challenged this termination through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal. The core legal issue was whether the Dheeraj Mor ruling applied to the appellant, given that he was an advocate at the time of application and not in Bihar's judicial cadre during the selection process. The appellant argued that eligibility should be determined as on the date of application, relying on Deepak Aggrawal v. Keshav Kaushik and Others, and contended that Dheeraj Mor was inapplicable. The respondents, represented by the High Court of Patna, opposed the appeal, asserting that the appellant was in service in Uttar Pradesh when appointed in Bihar, making Dheeraj Mor applicable. The Supreme Court analyzed the facts, noting that the appellant was neither in Bihar's subordinate judicial services at the time of application nor at the time of selection, and had diligently sought permissions from the Allahabad High Court. The court reasoned that the peculiar circumstances distinguished the case from Dheeraj Mor, as the appellant's initial eligibility as an advocate remained valid. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the termination letter and notification, directed reinstatement within two weeks, granted continuity of service for seniority and terminal benefits, but denied emoluments for the period of unemployment. The decision emphasized the importance of factual context in applying legal precedents.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Service Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - Not mentioned - The appellant, an advocate with over 7 years practice, applied for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Bihar in 2016. He later joined Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service in 2017 but participated in Bihar's selection process with permission, was selected, and joined in 2018. The High Court applied Dheeraj Mor to terminate his services, but the Supreme Court held that since he was not in Bihar's judicial cadre at application or selection, Dheeraj Mor was inapplicable. The appeal was allowed, reinstating him with continuity but without back wages (Paras 9-18). B) Service Law - Termination of Service - Show Cause Notice - Not mentioned - The High Court issued show cause notices in May and June 2020 based on Dheeraj Mor judgment, leading to termination via letter dated 4 January 2021. The Supreme Court quashed the termination, finding it unjustified as the appellant's eligibility was valid at the time of application and he had obtained necessary permissions (Paras 3-4, 16). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - High Court Decision - Not mentioned - The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging his termination. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding the High Court erred in applying Dheeraj Mor to the peculiar facts, thus allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment (Paras 2, 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi, which prohibits judicial officers from applying for direct recruitment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, applies to the appellant who was an advocate at the time of application and later joined another state's judicial service during the selection process
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The letter dated 4 January 2021 and notification dated 17 December 2020 are quashed and set aside. The appellant is directed to be reinstated forthwith within two weeks, with continuity in service for all purposes including seniority and terminal benefits, but without emoluments for the period out of employment.
Law Points
- Eligibility for judicial service recruitment is determined as on the date of application
- not subsequent appointment
- The law laid down in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi is not applicable where a candidate was not in service of the recruiting state's judicial cadre at the time of application or selection
- Continuity of service for seniority and terminal benefits is granted but back wages are denied for period of unemployment
