HARI DATT KAINTHLA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Would Article 16 of the Constitution come to the rescue and be successfully invoked by appellants, admittedly juniors in the gradation list of Subordinate Judges in the State of Himachal Pradesh to respondents 3, 4 and 5, questioning the legality and validity of their promotion to the cadre of District/Additional District and Sessions Judges ('DSJ/ADSJ' for short), as also questioning the legality and validity of promotion of respondents 6 and 7 to the selection grade post of Subordinate Judge

(2.) Uncontroverted facts are that Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory till January 25, 1971, when at the apex of judicial hierarchy there was a Court of Judicial Commissioner. On the introduction of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, ('Reorganisation Act' for short) effective from November 1, 1966, certain territories were transferred and added to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh simultaneously extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh to the transferred territories. Consequently, provision was made for allocation of persons belonging to different services in pre-reorganised State of Punjab (Respondents 4 to 7 being such allocated officers) to Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. On May 2, 1967, the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh was placed under the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court which continued till Jan. 25, 1971, when statehood was conferred on the Union Territory and a full-fledged High Court of Himachal Pradesh was set up.

(3.) Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, ('1948 Order' for short), was issued by the Union Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sections 3 and 4 of the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, and this Order remained in force till it was replaced by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Service Rules, 1962 ('1962 Rules' for short). Para 16 (2) of the 1948 Order provided for the appointment of District and Sessions Judges. The Chief Commissioner had power to appoint as many persons as he considered necessary to be District Judges. 1962 Rules appear not to have made any departure in this behalf.