NDLI: Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	District Judiciary
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Service Law – Promotion – Eligibility Criteria – Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007 – Rule 6(1)(a) r/w. Rule 8 – Recommendation of the High Court that for a candidate seeking promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, an aggregate of 50% marks for both, i.e. in the written test and in the viva voce, would be required so as to render a candidate eligible for promotion – Challenge to: Held: The High Court was correct in prescribing that recruitment by promotion to the Higher Judicial Service should have a minimum of 50% both in the written test as well as in the viva voce independently, for those in-service candidates who were drawn for promotion in the 65% promotion quota – This is because the candidate should not just demonstrate the ability to reproduce their knowledge by answering questions in the suitability test, but must also demonstrate both practical knowledge and the application of the substantive law in the course of the interview – In-service candidates seeking recruitment through promotions cannot be considered at par with candidates seeking direct recruitment or with candidates seeking accelerated promotion through a limited competitive test – The three modes of recruitment have been reasonably classified and different requirements have been prescribed for each – As such, what may or may not have been held in respect of the viva voce in direct recruitments may not necessarily apply to the viva voce requirement in recruitments through promotions [Paras 65, 37, 41] Eligibility criteria for Higher Judicial Services: Held: The Higher Judicial Services require the selection of judicial officers of mature personality and requisite professional experience – In-service judicial officers are expected to have a greater familiarity with the law and the procedure based on their experience as judicial officers – While an objective written examination can be the best gauge of the legal knowledge of a candidate, the viva voce offers the best mode of assessing the overall personality of a candidate – The purpose of the interview for officers in that class is to assess the officer in terms of the ability to meet the duties required for performing the role of an Additional District and Sessions Judge – Consequently, there would be a reasonable and valid basis, if the High Court were to do so, to impose a requirement of a minimum eligibility or cut-off both in the written test and in the viva voce separately. [Paras 42, 44] Administrative directions can fill up the gaps and supplement the Rules, when they are silent on a particular point: Held: When the Rules under Article 309 hold the field, these Rules have to be implemented – Where specific provisions are made in the Rules framed under Article 309, it would not be open to the High Court to issue administrative directions either in the form of the Full Court Resolution or otherwise, that are at inconsistent with the mandate of the Rules – On the other hand, in cases such as the one at hand, where the Rules were silent, it is open to the High Court to issue a Full Court Resolution – The Rules being silent, it was clearly open to the High Court to prescribe such a criterion as it did in 2013, when the 50% cut-off was prescribed on aggregate scores and also, in 2021, when the 50% cut-off was prescribed on the written test scores and the viva voce separately. [Paras 50, 52 and 65] Constitution of India - Articles 233, 234 and 235 – Appointments to the District Judiciary to be in consultation with the High Court and any other exercise de hors such consultation would not be in accordance with the scheme of the Constitution: Held: In matters of appointment of judicial officers, the opinion of the High Court is not a mere formality because the High Court is in the best position to know about the suitability of the candidates to the post of District Judge – The Constitution, therefore, expects the Governor to engage in constructive constitutional dialogue with the High Court before appointing persons to the post of District Judges under Article 233. [Para 62] The State Government travelled beyond the remit of the consultation with the High Court by referring the matter to the Union Government. Any issue between the High Court and the State Government should have been ironed out in the course of the consultative process within the two entities – The State Government was bound to consult only the High Court – Any other exercise de hors such consultation would not be in accordance with the scheme of the Constitution. [Para 66] Doctrines – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Twin Test: Held: An individual who claims the benefit or entitlement based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation has to establish: (i) the legitimacy of the expectation; and (ii) that the denial of the legitimate expectation led to a violation of Article 14. [Para 58]
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 192
Petitioner	Dr Kavita Kamboj
Respondent	High Court Of Punjab And Haryana & Ors
SCR	[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1136
Judgement Date	2024-02-13
Case Number	2179-2180

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

H.l. Randev and Ors. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors.

Dev Singh & Ors. Vs. Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors.

Baldev Raj Guliani & Others Vs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court & Others

M.b. Sanghi, Advocate Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors.

Registrar General, Patna High Court Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors.

Satnam Singh and Ors. Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Ors.

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court At Chandigarh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. Vs. High Court of A.p. & Ors.

Registrar General High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti

Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

H.l. Randev and Ors. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors.

Dev Singh & Ors. Vs. Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors.

Baldev Raj Guliani & Others Vs. The Punjab & Haryana High Court & Others

M.b. Sanghi, Advocate Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors.

Registrar General, Patna High Court Vs. Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors.

Satnam Singh and Ors. Vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Ors.

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court At Chandigarh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. Vs. High Court of A.p. & Ors.

Registrar General High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti

Dr Kavita Kamboj Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors