JOHN K. ILLIKKADAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, one of the senior most District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service of the State, is aggrieved by his non-consideration for elevation as a Judge of this Court under Article 217 read with Article 224 of the Constitution of India. His claim arose by reason of a revision of seniority carried out, pursuant to a judgment in a batch of writ appeals, one of which filed by him was W.A. No. 846 of 2019. The interse seniority between the District Judges promoted from the Subordinate Judiciary and directly recruited, was the issue arising therein. The dispute was also as against respondents 5 to 7, who are directly recruited to the Higher Judicial service.

(2.) The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the High Court that there was no recommendation made by the Collegium of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to any Judicial Officer, who completed 58 1/2 years as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. The communication issued by the Government of India on 25.04.2009 speaking of the maximum age limit, as proposed by the Chief Justice of India, was also noticed, which is 58 1/2 years as on the date of arising of vacancy. Finding that it has been the consistent practice to follow such guidelines, extracted in the judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the further ground that the position claimed by the appellant is a constitutional post, to which he has no substantive right of appointment nor is there any violation of service conditions.

(3.) Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, raised the very same contentions before us, as raised before the learned Single Judge and specifically referred to the Collegium recommendations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now available in the website of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein there was an exception made by the Collegium in the case of elevation of District Judges to another High Court. It is also argued that even before the learned Single Judge it was pointed out that there was a recommendation made by the Collegium of yet another High Court, which however was not recommended by the Collegium of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no prescription of a maximum age of 58 1/2 years even in the Memorandum of Procedure [MOP] as uploaded in the website, is the further contention.