E-Paper
Superior judicial officers’ appointments: HC terms Haryana’s communication ‘contemptuous’, summons chief secy
Thirteen names were recommended by the high court for appointment as ADJs. However, as the government did not notify the names, on September 6 some judicial officers approached the HC on judicial side seeking directions to the Haryana government to conclude the process of selection and notification of appointments.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has summoned the chief secretary, Haryana, Sanjeev Kaushal on Thursday over the “contemptuous” content of a letter purportedly written on the “recommendation of the chief minister” to the high court rejecting list of names proposed for appointment as additional district and sessions judges (ADJs) in the state by the high court.
Thirteen names were recommended by the high court for appointment as ADJs. However, as the government did not notify the names, on September 6 some judicial officers approached the high court on judicial side seeking directions to the state government to conclude the process of selection and notification of appointments. Acting on the plea, the high court had then sought a status report from the government and observed that it did not see “any tangible reason as to why the state should drag its feet in issuing the requisite notification” in view of the provision of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, which says appointments would be made by the government in “consultation” of the high court concerned.
During the hearing on Wednesday, Rashmi Grover, a joint secretary with the government, who was summoned by the high court after perusing the content of the letter, when questioned said that “it (letter) has been recommended by the chief minister.”
A division bench of the HC comprising Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan termed the language used in the letter, “per se contemptuous” and has now summoned the chief secretary and also asked to bring the original file to ascertain “who approved the issuance of the said letter”.
In the letter in question written to registrar general on September 12 (administrative side), the government has not accepted the recommendations of the high court and has asked the high court to send revised recommendations after following “set procedure as per law”.
It says, “The Constitution has conferred upon the high court a sacred and noble duty to give best advice or the opinion to the governor. The high court cannot act arbitrarily in giving its opinion to the governor or else it will be a betrayal of trust. If the advice is not supportable by any material on record and is arbitrary in character, it may not have any binding value/effect.”
As per the letter, the high court through a resolution of November 30, 2021, made modifications in the criterion for filling up these vacancies. The requiring of consultation for amending the rules is mandatory. Since consultation did not take place, the government is not bound to accept the recommendations of the selection committee of the high court, it says.
As per the letter, the government had sought legal opinion from the ministry of law and justice, Government of India. The opinion tendered by the Centre, which was binding on the state government, says the requirement of consultation for amending the rules is mandatory.
The judgments passed by the Supreme Court are equally binding on the high courts, state governments and the Centre, it says referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court in which it held that consultation between the high court and the state government “requires interchanging of views to each other”. The Supreme Court has reiterated in various judgments that the consultation of the government with the high court does not mean that government must accept whatever advice or recommendation is given by the high court, the letter reads pointing out that the promotions without consulting the state government on modified criterion may fall within the scope of judicial review.
