New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the promotion of 68 judicial officers as district judges in Gujarat, after taking exception to the State government notifying the promotions while the legality of the promotions was sub-judice before the Court.
Among the 68 judges whose promotions will be impacted by the stay order is Harish Hasmukh Bhai Varma, who passed the order of conviction against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case leading to his disqualification from the Lok Sabha.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar stayed the recommendation made by the Gujarat High Court for the promotion of the judicial officers and the consequent notification issued by the government to implement the recommendation.
The present stay order would be applicable to those promoted, whose names do not figure within first 68 candidates in merit list, the bench clarified in the order.
"Promotions must be made on principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test. Recommendations by HC & subsequent government notification are illegal", Justice Shah read out.
The bench has not finally disposed of the petition and has only passed an interim order staying the promotions. The bench directed that the matter be heard by an appropriate bench on assignment by the CJI, as Justice Shah is retiring on May 15.
Background
The plea before the apex court sought to challenge the recommendations made by the Gujarat government for the promotion of district judges in the state. According to the petitioners – both unsuccessful candidates – the appointments had been made by a March notification on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit principle, in contravention to the recruitment rules, which specified that district judge posts would be filled up by reserving 65 per cent of seats on merit-cum-seniority basis and on the candidates passing a suitability test.
Last month, on the strength of the petitioners’ contentions, the apex court issued notice to the Gujarat High Court as well as the state government. Interestingly, before the bench issued notice, the high court had recommended the promotion of the concerned district judges, and the file was pending before the Gujarat government at the time the notice was issued. However, less than a week after this, the state government notified the promotions of the judges recommended by the high court.
In response to this, the Supreme Court expressed its stern disapproval of what Justice Shah described as an ‘overreach’ by the executive, taking strong exception to the promotions granted to district judges in Gujarat in March, during the pendency of the plea challenging the names recommended by the high court.“We are prima facie of the opinion that it is nothing but overreaching the court’s process and the present proceedings,” the bench observed. It had pronounced on April 28 as follows:
“It is very unfortunate that despite the fact that the respondents/State government were aware of the present proceedings, the state government has issued the promotion order after the receipt of the notice issued by this court in the proceedings. In the promotion order even the state government had stated that the promotions are subject to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order when this court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed issuing notice. It is to be noted that the selection was of the year 2022, therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order.”
The division bench also summoned the state secretary to court on the next date of hearing to offer an explanation in person, indicating that if it was not satisfied with the said explanation, the government’s notification would be suspended.
Earlier this month, in the presence of the government officers in court, Justice Shah questioned the counsel for the state of Gujarat, demanding an explanation for its decision to notify the promotions when the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. Once again, the judge chastised the government for trying to ‘overreach’ the court’s process.
(With inputs from LiveLaw)
