Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Civil Judges in Himachal Pradesh Despite Selection Irregularities

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated on the case of Vivek Kaisth & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., which involved a dispute regarding the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh. This case stemmed from allegations of irregularities in the selection process conducted in 2013. The verdict delivered by the Supreme Court sets a precedent on how judicial appointments should be handled, particularly when vacancies are advertised, and how procedural fairness must be balanced with practical considerations.

Background of the Case

On February 1, 2013, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) issued an advertisement inviting applications for eight vacancies for the position of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service. Out of these, six were existing vacancies, and two were anticipated vacancies.

The selection process consisted of a preliminary examination held on May 12, 2013, followed by a main written examination between July 15 and July 18, 2013. Following the results of these examinations, interviews were conducted on October 7 and October 8, 2013. Subsequently, a merit list of eight selected candidates was published on the HPPSC website and in leading newspapers.

However, two additional candidates, Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra, were later included in the list through a notification dated December 27, 2013, bringing the total number of appointed candidates to ten. This triggered legal challenges, as these two vacancies were not initially advertised.

High Court’s Decision

The Himachal Pradesh High Court found the inclusion of Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra to be illegal. It ruled that their appointments were made in violation of constitutional principles, as the vacancies had not been advertised and no waiting list had been declared beforehand.

The High Court cited the precedent set in Shweta Dhingra v. State of H.P., wherein it was directed that the Public Service Commission should prepare a select list including 2/3rd of the actual and anticipated vacancies. However, the High Court concluded that this extension of selection beyond the originally notified vacancies was improper.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra, put forward the following arguments in their defense:

They had qualified through the same competitive examination and were included in the merit list.
Their selection was made in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the State Government, and the Public Service Commission.
The appointments were made as per the guidance laid down in the Shweta Dhingra judgment.
They had been serving as judges for nearly 10 years and had even been promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division).

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, including the original petitioners before the High Court, contended that:

The appointments violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the vacancies were not publicly advertised.
The inclusion of these candidates after the declaration of results deprived other eligible candidates of a fair opportunity.
The process lacked transparency and bypassed the established selection framework.
The petitioners were beneficiaries of an unlawful act by the selection authorities.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court examined the legality of these appointments in light of prior judgments, particularly Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, which provides clear guidelines on how judicial appointments must be conducted.

The Court made the following key observations:

Appointments must strictly adhere to the number of advertised vacancies.
The inclusion of additional candidates beyond notified vacancies is against established service jurisprudence.
Despite the irregularity in the selection process, the appointments were not made with mala fide intent.
The petitioners had served for nearly 10 years and gained significant judicial experience.

The Court emphasized that had there been a waiting list in place, these appointments might have been legally sustainable. However, in this instance, the additions were made post hoc, leading to legitimate concerns over procedural fairness.

Key Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court noted:

“The appointments of the appellants were made on posts that were not advertised and, in fact, did not exist at the time of the advertisement.”

Despite this, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to pass orders necessary to ensure complete justice in any case.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, overturning the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision. The Court concluded that while there was an irregularity in the appointments, unseating the petitioners after 10 years of service would be counterproductive and against public interest.

The Court issued the following directives:

The appointments of Vivek Kaisth and Akansha Dogra would remain valid.
Future judicial appointments must strictly adhere to the number of advertised vacancies.
The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission must establish a transparent waiting list mechanism to avoid similar disputes.
The petitioners’ careers should not be adversely affected due to the legal battle.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the necessity of procedural fairness while also recognizing the practical realities of governance. The decision highlights the delicate balance between upholding constitutional principles and ensuring that competent judicial officers are not unduly penalized for administrative lapses.

Petitioner Name: Vivek Kaisth & Anr..
Respondent Name: The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 20-11-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: vivek-kaisth-&-anr.-vs-the-state-of-himacha-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-11-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category