AJIT D PADIWAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India (hereafter mentioned as "Constitution" for short) involves the consideration of the controversy concerning the recommendation of eligible persons made by the High Court in December 1994, for the appointments to the posts of District Judges and Ahmedabad City Civil Court Judges, under Art. 233 of the Constitution. The petition contains mainly two grounds, namely, (a) the alleged denial of equal opportunity of being considered for the said offices under Art. 16 of the Constitution; and (b) the recommendations allegedly not being made by the Full Court contrary to the requirement of Art. 233. During the course of the arguments, two more grounds were also pressed, namely, (c) regarding the relevant rules being in derogation of the authority of the High Court under Art. 233; and (d) regarding the procedure followed in the matter of actual selection.

(2.) The petitioner is an Advocate practising in the Gujarat High Court for last about 14 years and has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the aforesaid breaches of the provisions of the Constitution. It is his view that an advertisement calling the applications for these posts is a must. He submitted that in some other High Courts, Recruitment Rules have been framed, providing for inviting of the applications and, in as much as, the Gujarat High Court has not followed that procedure or "a procedure known to law" (as stated in the petition), many deserving candidates are left out apart from causing injustice to some interested persons. He has, therefore, prayed to set aside the action of making the appointments by not following the procedure like issuing advertisement and inviting applications for not being in consonance with Arts. 233 and 309 of the Constitution. He has also sought a declaration that the respondents are duty bound to get the approval of the Full Court while making these appointments under Art. 233. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to frame the necessary rules under Art. 233 read with Art. 309 of the Constitution. Needless to state that he has sought an order restraining the respondents from making any appointments in the cadre of District Judges and City Civil Court Judges, pursuant to the above referred interview and selection until the matter is fully heard and decided.

(3.) The first respondent to this petition is the State of Gujarat, through the Secretary, Legal Department, the second respondent is the Registrar of the High Court of Gujarat and the third respondents are the Honourable Members of the Selection Committee. When the matter first came up before me on 16th January, 1995, after hearing the petitioner-Advocate in person, I formed an opinion that, it will be better that the papers of this matter are placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to consider whether the matter should be heard by a Division Bench taking up the constitutional matters or some other Division Bench considering the importance of the issue raised. Accordingly, I directed the Registrar to place the papers before the Honourable the Chief Justice. In view of the administrative order passed by the Honourable the Chief Justice thereafter, the matter was referred back to me and it was placed before me on 19th January, 1995.