E-Paper
Superior judicial officers’ appointments: Saying no to HC recommendations, Haryana refuses to withdraw letter
Haryana chief secretary Sanjeev Kaushal was summoned after the HC bench on Wednesday termed the language of the September 12 letter “contemptuous”, which was 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) from judicial officers of the state.
The Haryana government on Thursday refused to withdraw a letter declining recommendations of the Punjab and Haryana high court to promote 13 judicial officers to state’s superior judiciary.
The state’s chief secretary, Sanjeev Kaushal, who appeared before the bench of justice GS Sandhawalia and justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan upon summoning by the bench, said, “(he) believed in the administration of justice and holds all the courts in the highest esteem. It is an article of faith for the deponent that the dignity of all the courts should be maintained. Therefore, there was no intention to disobey any orders of this honourable court on judicial side.” With state’s advocate general, BR Mahajan on his side, in fact, he started his address in the court with this.
Kaushal was summoned after the bench on Wednesday termed the language of the September 12 letter “contemptuous”, which was 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) from judicial officers of the state.
The letter in question was produced on Wednesday during the hearing of a plea by some judicial officers who had sought directions to the state government to conclude the process of selection and notification of appointments. Thirteen names were recommended by the high court for appointment as ADJs. However, as government did not notify the names, this plea was filed. Subsequently, the letter in question was written by the government to the high court, rejecting the names. The court had taken exception to the language of the letter in which it was stated that “the Constitution has conferred upon the high court a sacred and noble duty to give best advice or 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.”
Court multiple times asks about govt stand
During nearly a one-hour-long hearing in a jam-packed court on Thursday afternoon, the chief secretary took the court through the original record of the case and read out file notings etc.
The bench, at least on three occasions, asked the chief secretary about the stand the state intends to take in the case in question. However, Kaushal did not make any statement on withdrawing the letter in question and maintained that he held courts in the “highest esteem”.
In the affidavit filed and statements made before the court, the chief secretary maintained that the state government noticed some “shortcomings” in the recommendations of the high court about these proposed appointments on February 23 received from the registrar general of the high court. On March 2, the government conveyed these shortcomings to the registrar general. But till date no specific reply to the observations raised by the state government has been addressed by the registrar general, he said, adding that a letter was received on March 22 from the registrar general but the same was “found not specific to the observations” raised by the government.
The affidavit filed said that being an appointing authority, the state government has decided not to accept the recommendation made by the registrar general. As of language used in the letter written to the registrar general, the chief secretary said that the language being referred to as “contemptuous” by the court are the lines reproduced from a judgment from the Supreme Court in which it underlines that the consultation of the government with the high court does not mean that the government must accept whatever advice or recommendation is given by the high court.
Now, the court has deferred hearing on the issue for October 9 and issued notice on the petition seeking government response. The court also allowed the petitioners to challenge letter in question by the petitioners within a week and further directed that government response to the plea would be filed thereafter in a week’s time. The court, however, did not return the original record of the case and ordered sealing of the same, to be kept in the custody of registrar judicial.
