V P PATIL Vs. JUSTICE N D DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11 October 1991, respondent 1 was appointed as Additional Judge of the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. ON 16 April 2008, he was elevated as a Judge of this court. His appointment as Additional Judge was continued from 17 April 2010 to 16 April 2011. ON 7 April 2011, the Principal Secretary & R.L.A. wrote a letter to the Registrar General of this court intimating to him that the Higher and Technical Education Department of the State Government wanted him to make a request to the Chief Justice to recommend the name of a person for appointment as Presiding Officer of the Bombay University and College Tribunal, Mumbai ("the College Tribunal") under Section 58 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994 as the post was vacant. ON 8 April 2011, respondent 1 conveyed his willingness for being appointed to the post. ON 8 April 2011, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, respondent 1 was appointed to the said post.

(2.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, challenges the appointment of the first respondent.

(3.) MR. Khambatta, learned Additional Solicitor General on the other hand, submitted that (i) this case is not covered by Kannadasan because (a) In that case, the judge was not confirmed because of a lack of probity; Such are not the facts here; (b) In Kannadasan, the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court had not gone through the 1 (2009) 7 SCC 1. relevant files and the decision making process was hence vitiated. In this case, the Honourable the Chief Justice is a part of the process of non-confirmation of respondent 1, it must be presumed that all relevant facts were known to the Chief Justice; (ii) The decision of the Chief Justice is not open to judicial review.