SH. SURINDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification issued on 27.8.1996 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana invited applications for selection of two candidates by direct recruitment from the Bar to fill up two temporary posts of District/Additional District & Sessions Judges from the general category in the State of Punjab. Thereafter by another notification dated 20.11.1996 applications were invited for the selection of three candidates (two from general category and one from Scheduled Caste Category) by direct recruitment from the Bar which included the two posts already notified on 27.8.1996. Petitioner who is a practising Advocate at Chandigarh and belongs to a Scheduled Caste applied for one of the posts. He was called for interview on 11.2.1999. The petitioner along with other candidates was interview by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and four senior Judges of the Court. He was selected against the reserved seat meant for a Scheduled Caste and his name was recommended by the Selection Committee to the Full Court. The High Court in its meeting held on 17.2.1999 approved the recommendations and it was decided to recommend the name of the petitioner alongwith with two other candidates to the State Government for appointment as Additional District & Sessions judges from the Bar quota. Before the recommendation could be made to the State Government, two complaints of professional misconduct against the petitioner which were pending with the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council came to the notice of the court. Those complaints were placed before the Full Court on 24.2.1999 and it was decided that the name of the petitioner be not sent to the State Government for appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judge till further orders. It may be mentioned that the name of other two selected candidates were recommended to the Government and they have since been appointed. Since the High Court withheld the name of the petitioner, the letter made representations asking the former to recommend his name to the State Government for appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judge. On receipt of the recommendations the court looked into the two complaints to find out whether there was any substance in them or they were frivolous so as not to be taken note of. One of the complaints was filed by one Gurdev Singh was alleged that his younger brother Ranjit Singh in connivance with the petitioner managed to obtain the signatures of his father on a Will dated 10.1.1996 and even though that Will was superseded by another Will he (petitioner) as an Advocate filed a suit on behalf of Ranjit Singh for a declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of that Will. It was also alleged that the petitioner had drafted the Will and attested the same as a witness and the suit too had been filed by him. This complaint remained pending with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for a period of one year thereafter it was transferred to the Bar Council of India under Sec. 36 -B(i) of the Advocates Act. Before the Bar Council of India the complainant filed an affidavit standing that he did not want to pursue the complaint as the petitioner had withdrawn from the suit as an Advocate. The complaint was dismissed on 30.5.1999 by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, the other complaint was filed by one Baljinder Singh on 16.2.1997. It was alleged that the petitioner had caused appearance in a case titled Sunder Devi v/s. Baljinder Singh relating to ejectment of the complainant from the first floor of the house in Chandigarh in spite of the fact that the complainant had never engaged the petitioner or authorised him to appear on his behalf in that case. In other words, the petitioner had put in appearance on his own without having the power of attorney from the complainant. It was further alleged that this was done at the instance of the opposite party and her Advocate and that the petitioner had entered into some kind of "secret deal and compromise"

(2.) The complaint further alleged that since the petitioner was counsel for the complainant in another case he had disclosed some important documents to the opposite party. In the meantime, the complainant was murdered on 23.7.1998. This complaint too was transferred to the Bar Council of India where the complainant's widow filed an affidavit withdrawing the same and the same was dismissed on 30.5.1999. Records of both the complaints were summoned from the Bar Council of India and also the files of the suits which were pending in the Civil Courts at Chandigarh and after examining the entire material, the High Court in its meeting held on 22.12.1999 decided that the petitioner was not suitable for appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judge. It is against this action of the High Court that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing it to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment as Additional District & Sessions Judge and for a further direction to the State Government to appoint him to that post.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, the High Court has filed its reply wherein a preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioner has no right to seek appointment to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge and that the writ petition is mis -conceived. On merits, the action is sought to be justified on the ground that in view of the complaints which came to the notice of the High Court it was justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and holding that he was not suitable for the post.