Haryana Government Defends Decision on District Judges’ Appointment, Cites Union Law Ministry’s Opinion
The Haryana government has stood firm on its decision to reject the recommendations put forth by the High Court concerning the appointment of Additional and District Sessions judges in the state.
In a detailed affidavit, Haryana’s Chief Secretary, Sanjeev Kaushal, highlighted that the state government sought legal counsel from the Union Law Ministry regarding the matter. The Ministry’s stance was clear: if the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules were unilaterally amended by the High Court, the Haryana government would not be obligated to adhere to the High Court’s recommendations.
The state’s decision was further influenced by a letter from an advocate, which alleged that the High Court had altered the eligibility criteria for the said appointments without the state government’s involvement. Specifically, the High Court was accused of setting the viva-voce cut-off marks at 50% without consulting the state or issuing a public notice.
The Union Law Ministry emphasized that it’s “mandatory” for the state government to be consulted when amending the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules. In instances where this consultation is allegedly overlooked, the Haryana government has the option to seek a judicial review.
This development follows a recent incident where the High Court summoned the Chief Secretary due to a letter, deemed ‘per se contemptuous’, sent by the Chief Minister to the High Court. This letter communicated the state’s decision to decline the High Court’s “arbitrary” promotion recommendations for 13 judicial officers.
Gurminder Singh, the petitioner’s counsel, argued that if any clarification was needed, the Governor should have consulted the High Court rather than the Union government. He referenced Article 233 of the Constitution, which mandates that district judges’ appointments in any state should be made by the state’s Governor in collaboration with the respective High Court. The Central government has no designated role in this process.
The High Court, in agreement with the petitioner, noted that the Centre had inappropriately cited case laws related to electricity to provide its opinion on the
“requirement of consultation for amending Rules.”
During the proceedings, the bench, consisting of Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, pondered if there was a deliberate hindrance in the appointment process. They questioned,
“Who is the blue-eyed boy for whom the state is sitting on the High Court’s recommendation?…We must have missed him in the recommendation.”
However, the Advocate General clarified that the state’s concerns were purely procedural. The court also criticized the Chief Secretary for the inappropriate language used in the letter, suggesting that their officers should attend the Mahatma Gandhi State Institute of Public Administration to learn proper communication with Constitutional bodies.
The case, titled “Shikha & others Vs. State of Haryana and others,” is scheduled for further hearing on October 9. The court has granted the petitioner the freedom to modify the plea based on subsequent developments.
