DALPAT RAJ BHANDARI Vs. PRESIDENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal. THE case was argued before the learned Single Judge as well as before us by the petitioner-appellant in person. An interesting prayer was made in the writ petition in the nature of mandamus. THE prayer in the writ petition reads as follows: i) Respondents be directed to advertise the post of Chief Justice of India, Judges of Supreme Court, Chief Justice of High Courts and Judges of High Court and petitioner be provided an opportunity to apply under such advertisement and compete before any appointment is made and selection be made after considering all candidates who are eligibles and applies for such appointment. ii) It be declared right to opportunity to apply for the post of and appointment of Chief Justice of India, Judge of Supreme Court, Chief Justice of State and High Court is an un- amendable fundamental right in these appointments and every eligible has right to apply and compete for such appointments irrespective of caste, creed or sex. iii) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit be awarded to the petitioner. "

(2.) THE President of India, Chief Justice of India, Governor of Rajasthan, Chief Justice of Rajasthan and Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice were made party- respondents.

(3.) THE copy of the judgment has been filed and marked as Exhibit-1 and copy of the Transferred Case has also been filed and marked as Exhibit-2. THE Supreme Court by order dated - 31. 3. 94 dismissed the Transferred Case (Civil) No. 6 of 1994. THE order in Ex. 1 reads thus: " IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIa CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIOn TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 6 OF 1994 Dalpat Raj Bhandari, Advocate. . . . . . . . Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. . . . . . . . . . Respondents ORDEr THE petitioner-in-person, who is an Advocate, is not present though the date was fixed in his presence. THE petitioner's application dated 29. 3. 1994 is rejected. In the petitioner's absence, we have gone through his writ petition. THE constitutional validity of transfer policy was judicially upheld in S. P. Gupta's case (S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India) (1982 (2) SCR 365 ). In the Judges Case-II (1993 (4) SCC 411) it was held that judicial review in the matter of transfer of Judges was not excluded but the area of justiciability was limited. It is clear from that judgment that it was so held with a view to prevent any transferred Judge being exposed to any litigation involving him except when he chose to resort to it himself, in the available limited area of justiciability. THE parameters of the area of justiciability in the sphere of judicial review have been clarified further in K. Ashok Reddy vs. Government of India (J. T. 1994 (1) 401 ). Three Judges Bench in Ashok Reddy's case (supra) said: " We consider it sufficient to observe that the limited area of justiciability in this sphere being clearly declared in the Judges Case - II and also herein while making it clear that no one other than the transferred Judge himself can question the validity of a transfer. . . . . . . " It was also emphasized in the said judgment: " It is time that the men at the apex level of the Indian judiciary are permitted to manage the affairs of the judicial family and look after its welfare and interest instead of permitting repeated instrusions by some in the guise of `public interest' thereby rendering the Judge vulnerable to avoidable controversy involving them. We are constrained to observe that the Allahabad case before us is of that kind. " THE present case is another one of the type of the `allahabad Case' referred to above. In view of the pronouncements aforementioned, this petition is misconceived and has no merits. It is dismissed as such. Sd/- (A. S. ANAND) J. Sd/- (S. P. BHARUCHA) J. New Delhi,