http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAJ KUMAR BINDLISH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (3)   639        1996 SCALE  (3)38

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Heard counsel on both sides.      This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to  the selection of three direct recruit members of the Bar as Additional District and Sessions Judges under the Haryana Higher Judicial Service. Mohinder Singh Suller, S.K. Sardana and  Nawab Singh  were selected by the Full Court of the High  Court sitting  as selection  committee; they  were appointed as  Additional District and Sessions Judges by the Governor of  Haryana on  the recommendation made by the High Court of  Punjab and  Haryana.  Out  of  65  candidates  who appeared for  the interview conducted between April 24, 1992 and April  21, 1989,  the above  three candidates came to be selected by  the High  Court. We  are informed and is not in dispute that  the entire  High  Court  sat  as  a  selection committee, interviewed  the candidates and recommended three candidates  for   appointment  as  Additional  District  and Sessions Judges  under Article 323 of the Constitution. Son- in-law of  one of  the  sitting  Judges  was  selected.  The learned Judge  did not participate in the selection process. Under Article  323 of  the Constitution,  the appointment of Additional District & Sessions Judge is made by the Governor of the  State in consultation with the High Court exercising the jurisdiction  in relation  to the said State. Therefore, it is settled practice in all the States that the respective High Court exercises the jurisdiction and power in selecting the  members  of  the  Bar  for  appointment  as  Additional District and Sessions Judges and accordingly recommendations are made  to the  Governor, who  on due  compliance appoints them as such.      It  is   contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner that  in view  of the law laid down by this Court in C.  Ravinchandran Iyer  vs. Justice  A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors. [(1995)  5 SCC  457 in  paragraphs 21  to 23] it is now settled law that a Judge of a High Court is required to keep

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the strict standards of conduct and rectitude. We approve of it and  feel that  it needs  no restructuring. The candidate who seeks selection to higher judicial services are normally feeder source  from service  candidates for  appointment  as Judges of  High Court  from the  service.  High  Courts  are required to adopt that procedure which would be conducive to achieve the said objects. It is contended for the petitioner that the  High  Court  had  not  adopted  any  principle  in selecting the  candidates. Therefore,  a procedure  which is conducive to  achieve  the  above  subject  requires  to  be adopted in  selecting the members of the Bar for appointment as Additional  District and Sessions Judges. In the counter- affidavit filed  by the  Registrar of  the High Court, it is stated that  after the complaint from eighteen advocates was received by the Registrar of the High Court, a sub-Committee was constituted  to look  into the  desirability to  adopt a definite procedure  to select candidates. Pursuant thereto a request was  made to  all the  other High Courts to know the procedure they  have adopted  and are  following.  The  sub- committee after  securing the  information had gone into the question and  recommended procedure  to be  followed in that behalf. The Full Court had considered its recommendation and resolved that  in future the procedure suggested by the Sub- committee would be followed in recruitment of the members of the Bar  as Additional  District and  Sessions  Judges.  The selection in  question could  not be  set at  naught on that ground. In  view of  the above procedure adopted by the High Court, we do not think that there would be any difficulty in future in  making selection  of the  members of  the Bar and recommending for appointment under Article 233 as Additional District and  Sessions Judges.  In view  of  the  fact  that selection was  made and  the respondents  were appointed way back in  1989 and  are continuing  in office  ever since, we think it  is not  a proper  case to unsettle their selection already made.  Even otherwise,  we do  not find any tangible illegality in the selection and recommendation in respect of the above  three respondents  and acceptance by the Governor in appointing  them  as  Additional  District  and  Sessions Judges.      The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.