Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the promotion of 68 judicial officers, including Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma who convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for criminal defamation and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment, to district judges by way of the 65 per cent quota rule.
The bench of Justices MR Shah & CT Ravikumar said that the promotions must be made on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test. Recommendations by HC & subsequent government notification are illegal, they added.
“State govt issued notification during the pendency of plea and after this court issued a notice…We stay the High Court recommendation and the government notification. Respective promotees are sent to their original post which they were holding before promotion,” Justice MR Shah said while pronouncing the operative portion of the verdict.
Court’s order came in the plea filed by two judicial officers of the senior civil judge cadre on April 13. The petitions filed by Ravikumar Maheta, undersecretary in the legal department of the Gujarat government, and Sachin Prataprai Mehta, assistant director at the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority argued that although the post of District Judge as per the Recruitment Rules was to be filled in by keeping 65% reservation on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test, it was given a go-by and the appointments were made on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit. Ravikumar Maheta in the plea had stated that he had secured 135.5 marks out of 200 and that Sachin Prataprai Mehta had secured 148.5 out of 200 but the candidates having lower marks were appointed.
The petitioner in the plea had sought for setting aside the selection list issued by the Gujarat HC on April 10 and subsequent notification of the state Govt of appointing them. They had also sought for directing the HC to prepare a “fresh merit list” based on the principle of merit cum seniority.
On April 28, the bench slammed Gujarat Govt for the “haste and hurry” in which it had issued a promotion order dated April 18, 2023. Disapproving the manner, the court in the order said, “We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order dated 18.04.2023 when this Court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed while issuing the notice. It is to be noted that the selection was for the year 2022 and therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order. We are prima facie of the opinion that it is nothing but overreaching the Court’s process and the present proceedings.”
The court had sought a response from the Secretary, State Govt to explain the reasons for showing “extraordinary urgency” for granting promotion and issuing a notification dated April 18, 2023.
The bench had also asked the Gujarat HC to place the “entire merit list on record” and to specify on whether the promotions to the post were to be given on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit or the merit-cum-seniority.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the promotion of 68 judicial officers, including Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma who convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for criminal defamation and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment, to district judges by way of the 65 per cent quota rule.
The bench of Justices MR Shah & CT Ravikumar said that the promotions must be made on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test. Recommendations by HC & subsequent government notification are illegal, they added.
“State govt issued notification during the pendency of plea and after this court issued a notice…We stay the High Court recommendation and the government notification. Respective promotees are sent to their original post which they were holding before promotion,” Justice MR Shah said while pronouncing the operative portion of the verdict. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Court’s order came in the plea filed by two judicial officers of the senior civil judge cadre on April 13. The petitions filed by Ravikumar Maheta, undersecretary in the legal department of the Gujarat government, and Sachin Prataprai Mehta, assistant director at the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority argued that although the post of District Judge as per the Recruitment Rules was to be filled in by keeping 65% reservation on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test, it was given a go-by and the appointments were made on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit. Ravikumar Maheta in the plea had stated that he had secured 135.5 marks out of 200 and that Sachin Prataprai Mehta had secured 148.5 out of 200 but the candidates having lower marks were appointed.
The petitioner in the plea had sought for setting aside the selection list issued by the Gujarat HC on April 10 and subsequent notification of the state Govt of appointing them. They had also sought for directing the HC to prepare a “fresh merit list” based on the principle of merit cum seniority.
On April 28, the bench slammed Gujarat Govt for the “haste and hurry” in which it had issued a promotion order dated April 18, 2023. Disapproving the manner, the court in the order said, “We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order dated 18.04.2023 when this Court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed while issuing the notice. It is to be noted that the selection was for the year 2022 and therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order. We are prima facie of the opinion that it is nothing but overreaching the Court’s process and the present proceedings.”
The court had sought a response from the Secretary, State Govt to explain the reasons for showing “extraordinary urgency” for granting promotion and issuing a notification dated April 18, 2023.
The bench had also asked the Gujarat HC to place the “entire merit list on record” and to specify on whether the promotions to the post were to be given on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit or the merit-cum-seniority.
