The Supreme Court allowed a serving Uttarakhand judicial officer to appear in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services examination, overturning an unexplained denial by the High Court. Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed the rejection, reinforcing standards in recruitment.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court permitted a serving judicial officer from Uttarakhand to sit for the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services (HPJS) examination, setting aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s prior decision to deny him permission without explanation.
A Bench composed of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan annulled the rejection letter from the Uttarakhand High Court that had barred the judicial officer from participating in the examination.
The Court stated,
“The letter dated 19.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 (Uttarakhand High Court) is quashed… and the prayers sought by the petitioner herein are granted…,”
The case was brought before the Court by judicial officer Vishal Thakur, who challenged the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision not to allow him to take the HPJS preliminary examination. Thakur, originally from Bilaspur district in Himachal Pradesh, had passed the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Examination and was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Haldwani, Nainital district, where he began his duties on November 21, 2022.
While serving, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a notification for the HPJS examination, prompting Thakur to apply on December 31, 2024. After submitting his application, he sought prior approval from the Uttarakhand High Court to take the examination.
Despite receiving an admit card from the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, the Uttarakhand High Court rejected Thakur’s request without providing reasons. Frustrated by this, Thakur turned to the Supreme Court.
He contended that there was no regulation within the Uttarakhand Judicial Service Rules that prevents a serving judicial officer from sitting for an examination in another state’s judicial service. He further argued that the unexplained refusal was arbitrary and infringed upon his fundamental rights as outlined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court upheld his appeal, quashed the letter from the Uttarakhand High Court, and allowed Thakur to appear in the HPJS preliminary examination. Advocate Divya Jyoti Singh represented Thakur in the proceedings.
Case Title: Vishal Thakur v The High Court Of Uttarakhand And Anr