Rejanish K.V vs K. Deepa

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7781 of 2021)

SUNIL KUMAR VERMA APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal challenges the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna

dated 8th April 2021 whereby the High Court dismissed the

writ petition filed by the appellant.

3. By the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged

the letter No. 23842/Admn (Selection & Appointment Cell) PF

(VIII). XIX-78-2016 dated 18th May 2020 and letter No.

Signature Not Verified 24973/Admn (Selection & Appointment Cell) PF (VIII). XIX- Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH

78-2016 dated 1st June 2020 issued by the High Court of Date: 2022.09.16 16:39:21 IST Reason:

Judicature at Patna, thereby calling upon the appellant to 1 show cause as to why his services from the post of Additional

District and Sessions Judge should not be terminated in view

of the judgment of this Court in the Case of Dheeraj Mor v.

High Court of Delhi1.

4. By way of an amendment to the petition, the appellant

has also challenged the letter No.402/Admn.(Apptt.)/XIX-03-

2021 dated 4th January 2021 by which his service in effect

was terminated.

5. The facts in brief leading to the present appeal are as under:-

The High Court of Judicature at Patna had invited

applications for recruitment to the post of Additional District

and Sessions Judge. The appellant, at the relevant time, was

an advocate having completed practice of more than 7 years.

As such, he was eligible to apply for the said post.

Accordingly, he had applied prior to 16th September 2016,

which was the last date for submitting the application.

5.1 It appears that on account of certain exigencies, the

selection process could not proceed further.

5.2 In the meantime, the State of Uttar Pradesh had invited

application for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The

1 (2020) 7 SCC 401

2 appellant had also applied for the said post. After being

successful in the selection process, he was appointed on 16 th

January 2017 as a Civil Judge (Junior Division).

5.3 After the appellant’s appointment in the subordinate

judicial service in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the selection

process for recruitment in the Bihar Superior Judicial

Services proceeded further. After obtaining the requisite

permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

the appellant participated in the selection process conducted

by the High Court of Judicature at Patna for the post of

Additional District & Sessions Judge. The said selection

process consisted of a preliminary written examination, main

written examination and an oral interview. In the said

selection process, the appellant was found to be meritorious

and was at Serial No. 50 in the selection list.

5.4 Vide notification dated 7th August 2018, the appellant

was offered appointment. The appellant, therefore, obtained

permission from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

for resigning from the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services, so as

to join his service as Additional District and Sessions Judge

in the State of Bihar.

3 5.5 Consequently, the appellant joined the Bihar Superior

Judicial Service with effect from 21st August 2018. In the

meantime, the judgment of this Court in the case of Dheeraj

Mor (supra) was delivered on 19th February 2020 wherein

this Court held that a Judicial Officer, regardless of her or

his previous experience as an advocate of 7 years, cannot

apply and compete for appointment to the post of Additional

District and Sessions Judge in the direct recruitment quota

for advocates and pleaders.

5.6 On the basis of the said judgment, the High Court of

Judicature at Patna issued a show cause notice as referred

hereinabove.

5.7 After considering the reply, the High Court of Patna

recommended the cancellation of the appellant’s

candidature. The Government of Bihar vide notification dated

17th December 2020 notified the cancellation of the

appellant’s candidature. The same was communicated to the

appellant by the High Court of Patna vide letter dated 4th

January 2021. The appellant challenged the same by filing

the writ petition which was dismissed by the impugned

judgment.

4

6. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submits that the law laid down

by this Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra) would not

be applicable to the appellant herein. He submits that what

is relevant is the eligibility of a candidate on the date of his

application. He relies on the judgment of a three-Judge

Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Aggrawal v.

Keshav Kaushik and Others2. He, therefore, submits that

the High Court has erroneously applied the law laid down in

the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra) to the facts of the present

case.

7. Per contra, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel

appearing for the High Court of Judicature at Patna,

vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the

Division Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the law

laid down in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra) and dismissed

the petition of the appellant.

8. He further submits that it cannot be disputed that

when the appellant was appointed as an Additional District

and Sessions Judge, he was very much in service in the

2 (2013) 5 SCC 277

5 Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Services. He, therefore,

submits that there is no error in the judgment of the High

Court of Judicature at Patna and the present appeal deserves

to be dismissed.

9. The present appeal arises out of peculiar facts and

circumstances. Undisputedly, the appellant had applied in

response to the advertisement issued by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna. As on the date of his application, he

was a lawyer having practiced for more than 7 years and

was, therefore, very much eligible to apply for the direct

recruitment category.

10. However, in the meantime, an advertisement was issued

by the State of Uttar Pradesh, in response to which he

applied and went through the selection process successfully

and was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

11. In the meantime, the selection process conducted by the

High Court of Judicature at Patna which had come to a

standstill, proceeded further in the year of 2018. The

appellant, therefore, after obtaining the requisite permission

from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad participated

in the selection process, in which he was found to be

6 meritorious. After being selected, he applied to the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad for grant of permission to

resign so as to join in the State of Bihar as an Additional

District and Sessions Judge.

12. It could thus be seen that firstly, the appellant was

neither in services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Services

Cadre on the date on which he applied and secondly, nor was

he in the services of the Bihar Subordinate Judicial Officer

Cadre on the date on which he was selected.

13. In that view of the matter, we find that the law laid

down in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra) is not applicable in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

14. It is further to be noted that the appellant was vigilant

enough to seek permission of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad before participating in the selection process. Not

only that, after he was found meritorious, he again sought

permission of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to

resign from the said services so as to join the Bihar Superior

Judicial Services.

7

15. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court was not justified

in dismissing the petition.

16. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The letter dated 4th

January 2021 issued by the High Court and notification

dated 17th December 2020 issued by the State of Bihar are

quashed and set aside.

17. The appellant is directed to be reinstated forthwith and,

in any case, within two weeks from today.

18. Though we hold that the appellant would be entitled to

continuity in service for all purposes, including seniority,

terminal benefits etc., however, he would not be entitled to

the emoluments for the period during which he was out of

employment.

19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…..….......................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

…….......................J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 12, 2022.

8