Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere in the challenge to the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Punjab & Haryana for the year 2010, considering the lapse of 15 years.

The Court declined to interfere in the issue as it held that "now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back by appointing judicial officer after 15 years or grant consequential reliefs at this point of time."

The bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar was considering the issue of the interpretation of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2010 in the context of recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) of the year 2010.

The bench disposed of the matter considering two aspects (1) the present issue is covered by the recent decision of the Court in Dr. Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors.; (2) there has been a lapse of 15 years and the appointments cannot be done for the recruitments of 2010.

On the first aspect, the Court relied upon the decision in Dr Kavita Kamboj, where the Court upheld criteria set by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that judicial officers seeking promotion to the post of District Judges should secure a minimum of 50% marks in the interviews.

The issue in the said case was related to the 65% quota for selection through merit-cum-seniority under the promotion procedure outlined by Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

The present bench, referring to the above case, observed that "The ratio of the said judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case, and the issue is somewhat similar."

On the second aspect, the Court noted that it would be improper to now ascertain the judicial appointments which were meant for the year 2010. It held, "The other reason to decline interference is that in the present case, selection is of the year 2010 for the post of civil judge, however, now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back by appointing judicial officer after 15 years or grant consequential reliefs at this point of time."

On the above two conditions, the Court refused to interfere in the matter.

AOR Aniteja Sharma appeared for the appellants. While the respondents were represented by Sr Adv Arun Bhardwaj.

Case Details: MUKESH KUMAR & ANR. v/s STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS| CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5482 OF 2024

Click here to read the order