A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was of the view that judges of the high court who participate in the selection process have domain knowledge both of the subject and of the nature of the service..—.RECENTLY, the Supreme Court rejected an application filed by the Haryana government seeking direction to allow the Public Service Commission in place of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to fill the 175 vacancies of junior civil judges in the state..A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was of the view that judges of the high court who participate in the selection process have domain knowledge both of the subject and of the nature of the service. .The Haryana Government wanted modification of the order of the Supreme Court dated February 12, 2009..In this decision, the Supreme Court had noted that the high court, after consultations with the government of Haryana and the Public Service Commission decided that the process of selection would be held at the instance of the high court and the Public Service Commission jointly. .In support of its application, the state government had cited a decision of the Supreme Court delivered on May 11, 2007, in which the court had observed that the high court was not right in addressing a letter to the state government that the vacancies were to be filled by it..Rejecting the application, the Bench noted: "If this understanding, which has been reflected in the consistent course of action since 2007, was to be deviated from, it had to be based on cogent material which is found to be evidently lacking.."The state government has not come before this court seeking a modification of the arrangement by placing objective data which would indicate either the inability of the high court to perform its task thus far or demonstrating that there have been deficiencies in the process conducted by the high court.".From 2007, a consistent pattern has been followed by which recruitment has been made by a selection committee consisting of three representatives of the high court and three other members, namely, (a) the Advocate General; (b) the chief secretary; and (c) the chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission. This practice was followed even as recently as in 2020..The Bench directed the state government to fill the existing 175 vacancies of junior civil judges at the earliest.."The state government shall, therefore, within a period of two weeks from the date of this Order, take necessary steps to ensure that the recruitment is conducted by a committee consisting of (i) three judges of the high court nominated by the chief justice; (ii) the chief secretary of the state of Haryana; (iii) the Advocate General of Haryana; and (iv) the chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission," the Bench ordered.
A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was of the view that judges of the high court who participate in the selection process have domain knowledge both of the subject and of the nature of the service..—.RECENTLY, the Supreme Court rejected an application filed by the Haryana government seeking direction to allow the Public Service Commission in place of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to fill the 175 vacancies of junior civil judges in the state..A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was of the view that judges of the high court who participate in the selection process have domain knowledge both of the subject and of the nature of the service. .The Haryana Government wanted modification of the order of the Supreme Court dated February 12, 2009..In this decision, the Supreme Court had noted that the high court, after consultations with the government of Haryana and the Public Service Commission decided that the process of selection would be held at the instance of the high court and the Public Service Commission jointly. .In support of its application, the state government had cited a decision of the Supreme Court delivered on May 11, 2007, in which the court had observed that the high court was not right in addressing a letter to the state government that the vacancies were to be filled by it..Rejecting the application, the Bench noted: "If this understanding, which has been reflected in the consistent course of action since 2007, was to be deviated from, it had to be based on cogent material which is found to be evidently lacking.."The state government has not come before this court seeking a modification of the arrangement by placing objective data which would indicate either the inability of the high court to perform its task thus far or demonstrating that there have been deficiencies in the process conducted by the high court.".From 2007, a consistent pattern has been followed by which recruitment has been made by a selection committee consisting of three representatives of the high court and three other members, namely, (a) the Advocate General; (b) the chief secretary; and (c) the chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission. This practice was followed even as recently as in 2020..The Bench directed the state government to fill the existing 175 vacancies of junior civil judges at the earliest.."The state government shall, therefore, within a period of two weeks from the date of this Order, take necessary steps to ensure that the recruitment is conducted by a committee consisting of (i) three judges of the high court nominated by the chief justice; (ii) the chief secretary of the state of Haryana; (iii) the Advocate General of Haryana; and (iv) the chairperson of the Haryana Public Service Commission," the Bench ordered.
