1 Recruitment to the Service shall be made, a 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges Senior Division Chief Judicial Magistrates Additional Civil Judges Senior Division on the basis of principle of merit cum seniority and passing a suitability test b 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited companypetitive examination of Civil Judges Senior Division having number less than five years qualifying service as Civil Judges Senior Division Chief Judicial Magistrates Additional Civil Judges Senior Division and who are number less than thirty five years of age on the last date fixed for submission of applications for taking up the limited companypetitive examinations and c 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test, companyducted by the High Court.
They were appointed under the Haryana State Prosecution Legal Service Group C Rules, 1979 for short, 1979 Rules .
The matter was heard by the Division Bench.
The written examinations were companyducted pursuant to the said numberification wherein 64 candidates were recommended for the interview.
This direction shall, however, remain in abeyance for a period of two months to enable the High Court to make alternative arrangements As a companysequence of the quashment of the selections appointments of above named respondents, the resultant five vacancies shall be filled up from the candidates next in the order of merit, out of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee The appointment of Fast Track Court Judges by a process of absorption after further examination and selection companytained in the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 18.03.2008 is affirmed.
However, he was unsuccessful before the High Court and he approached this Court.
Recruitment to the Service shall be made by the Governor, by promotion from amongst the Haryana Civil Service Judicial Branch in companysultation with the High Court and by direct recruitment from amongst eligible Advocates on the recommendations of the High Court on the basis of the written and viva voce test companyducted by the High Court.
The three appellants namely, Deepak Aggarwal, Chandra Shekhar and Desh Raj Chalia, at the time of their application, were admittedly working as Assistant District Attorney.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the above judgment disposed of 12 writ petitions wherein challenge was laid to the selection and appointment of certain candidates to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service HSJS on diverse grounds.
The High Court by its judgment disposed of the writ petitions in the following manner Selections appointments of respondents number 9 Dinesh Kumar Mittal , 12 Rajesh Malhotra , 13 Deepak Aggarwal , 15 Chandra Shekhar and 18 Desh Raj Chalia in CWP No.
The appellants in this group of seven appeals are, Deepak Aggarwal, Dinesh Kumar Mittal, Rajesh Malhotra, Chandra Shekhar and Desh Raj Chalia, whose selections appointments as Additional District and Sessions Judges have been quashed by the High Court, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh on its administrative side.
The Selection Committee sent two lists, one companyprising the names of three advocates and the other companyprising the names of three judicial officers to the High Court.
At the time of appointment, Deepak Aggarwal was working as Assistant District Attorney in Himachal Pradesh Chandra Shekhar and Desh Raj Chalia were working as Assistant District Attorney in the State of Haryana, Rajesh Malhotra was working as Public Prosecutor in the office of Central Bureau of Investigation and Dinesh Kumar Mittal was working as Deputy Advocate General in the office of the Advocate General, Punjab.
On 18.05.2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh through its Registrar General issued a numberification inviting applications for recruitment to certain posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh issued a numberice to the appellant to show cause why his enrolment be number withdrawn.
The appellant responded to the said numberice.
The Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh companymunicated to the Board that the appellant did number meet the requirements of the Rules he should be first designated as Law Officer and the order of appointment and the terms of such appointment be companymunicated.
Order dated 22.09.2008 Annexure P 8 in CWP No.
If on such re consideration, the State decides to de reserve the vacancies, candidates recommended by the High Court vide its recommendation letter dated 25.4.2008, shall be appointed.
It was this resolution which was challenged by the appellant before the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
After companyducting the interview, the High Court recommended the names of 16 candidates in order of merit to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana by direct recruitment.
17708 of 2008 rejecting the request of the High Court for de reservation of six vacancies four Scheduled Caste, 2 Backward Classes is hereby quashed.
Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court raising diverse grounds of challenge.
Of the 16 candidates recommended by the High Court, 5 were the appellants.
Consequent on the companymunication received from the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, the Board designated the appellant as Law Officer.
Based on the recommendation of the High Court, the State of Haryana issued appointment orders.
Later on, the appellant was allowed to act as an advocate of the Board and, accordingly, his application seeking enrollment was sent by the Board to the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh.
The Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh issued a certificate of enrolment dated 9.7.1984 to the appellant.
Subsequently, the appellant was given ad hoc promotion to the post of Under Secretary, Legal cum Law Officer and then promoted as Under Secretary, Legal cum Law Officer on officiating basis.
This Court referred to Sections 24, 28 and 49 of the 1961 Act and Rule 49 of the BCI Rules.
In the meanwhile, appellant was also promoted as Deputy Secretary Legal cum Law Officer on ad hoc basis.
9157 of 2008 wherever they may be in other writ petitions as Additional District and Sessions Judges, are hereby quashed.
The process of re consideration shall be companypleted within six weeks and the decision be companymunicated to the High Court.
86 88 The petitioners 1 to 9 came to be appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutors Senior Assistant Public Prosecutors Public Prosecutors in terms of the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government.
As there was some debate on the scope of the certificate granted by the High Court, this Court also granted Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court.
On 12.5.1996, the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh passed an order withdrawing the enrolment of the appellant with immediate effect and directed him to surrender the enrolment certificate within 15 days therefrom.
Chandra Mohan, who was Member of U.P. Civil Services Judicial Branch and who was at that time acting as a District Judge, and some other officers who were similarly situated, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 challenging the selection of the six candidates for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service.
The members of the Bench agreed that selection from the Bar was good but as regards selection from the cadre of judicial officers, there was difference of opinion on the aspect of number issuance of numberification under Article 237 of the Constitution.
