RAJ KUMAR BINDLISHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

f


                              RAJ KUMAR BINDLISH                                    A
                                            v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                 FEBRUARY 29, 1996

                     [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGH!R AHMAD                                 B
                           AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.)

            Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 233.

           Additional District and Sessions Judges-Appointment of-Procedure         C
    for-Haryana Higher Judicial Servic~Selection of members of Bar as Addi-
    tional District and Sessions Judges-Selection of son-in-law of one of the
    sitting Judges-Judge not participating in selection-Writ challenging appoint-
     menf-Held in view of the definite procedure adopted for selection appoint-
     ment in question could not be set at naught-Since long period has elapsed
     after appointment unsettling the selection already made held not               D
    prope~ven otherwise no tangible illegality found in appointment-Writ
    challenging appointment dismissed..

         Judicial discipline-iudge-Need for maintaining strict standards of
    conduct and rectitude emphasised.
                                                                                    E
            C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee & Ors., [1995] 5
    sec 457' referred to.
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 68 of
    1990.
                                                                                    F
            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

            Ravindra Bana for the Petitioners.

            l.S. Goyal and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the State.
                                                                                    G
            Mahabir Singh, Sunil Gupta and P.N. Puri for the Respondent Nos.
    2&5.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Heard counsel on both sides.                                            H
                                            77
    78                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A          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 ap-
    pointed as Additional District and Session Judges by the Governor of
8
    Haryana on the recommendation made by the High Court of Punjab aad
    Haryana. Out of 65 candidates who appeared for the interview conducted
    between April 20, 1989 and April 21, 1989, the above three condidates came
    to be selected by the High Court. We are informed and it is not in dispute
    that the entire High Court sat as a selection committee, interviewed the
c   candidates and recommended three candidates for appointment as Addi-
    tional District and Sessions Judges under Article 233 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 233 of the Constitu-
    tion, the appointment of Additional District & Sessions Judge is made by
D   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 Stales that the respective High Court exercises the jurisdiction
    and power in selecting the members of the Bar for appointment as Addi-
    tional District and Sessions J udgcs and accordingly recommendations are
    made to the Governor, who on due compliance appoints them as such.
E
          It is contended by the learned counsel for this petitioner that in view
    of the law laid down by this Court in C. Ravichandran Iyer v. 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 the strict
F standards of conduct and rccritudc. We approve of it and feel that it needs
  no restructuring. The candidates who seek selection to higher judicial
  services are normally feeder source from service candidates for appoint-
  ment as Judges of High Court from the service. High Court are required
  to adopt that procedure which would be conclusive to achieve the said
  objects. It is contended for the petitioner that the High Court had not
G adopted any principle in selecting the condidates. 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
H was received by the Registrar of the High Court, a sub-Committee was
                           R.K. BINDLISHv. STATE                          79

   constituted to look into the desirability to adopt a definite procedure to   A
+ 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 ques-
   tion 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 recruit- B
   ment 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 C
   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 D
   respondents and acceptance by the Governor in appointing them as Addi-
   tional District and Sessions Judges.

        The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

   T.N.A.                                                 Petition dismissed.