HC: Quality of judgments right criterion for judges’ elevation

CHANDIGARH: In a significant verdict, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that “quality of judgments” passed by the judicial officers has been rightly included in the criteria for promotion as additional district and sessions judges as the post is of higher responsibility and requires high skills.'
“The post of additional district and sessions judge is of much higher responsibility. The skill of the officer to martial the evidence, law and pass a reasoned judgment have to be of higher quality so that people may get justice,” the high court observed.

A division bench comprising Justice A B Chaudhari and Justice Kuldeep Singh passed the order while upholding the rules framed by the Punjab and Haryana high court regarding the promotion of the judicial officers for promotion on the post of additional district and sessions judge. The rules included the examining the “quality of judgments” passed by the judicial officers.

The bench passed these orders while dismissing a petition filed by Anmol Nayyar, civil judge (senior division)- cum-chief judicial magistrate (CJM) of Bhiwani. He had challenged the decision of the high court administration promoting seven judicial officers to the post of additional district and sessions judge on October 21, 2017.

Judges’ panel found petitioner’s judgments ‘below average’

The grievance of the petitioner was that for 20 posts, judicial officers were called for suitability test under Rule 6(1)(a) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 through a letter dated July 25, 2017.

The test was held on August 12, 2017 and thereafter, the petitioner appeared for an interview on September 12, 2017, but was not selected. Seven names were recommended.

The petitioner claimed that the selection appeared to have been made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, which is against Rule 6(1)(a) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007.

Responding to the petition, the HC administration said that a committee of judges had gone through the judgments of the officers carefully. The committee graded the judgments delivered by Anmol Singh Nayyar as “below average.” Thus, the committee held that he was not recommended for promotion. Other officers were promoted.

Hearing both the parties, the HC held that the judgments of the judicial officers during the preceding three years was one of the components to be considered for assessing their merit and suitability.

Admittedly, the petitioner had passed the written test and viva voce test, but the committee had examined his judgments and graded them “below average.” Therefore, he was found not suitable.

“It is apparent that except the petitioner, quality of judgments of all other 19 candidates was found to be either ‘above average’ or ‘good’ or ‘very good’ and therefore, they were found suitable for promotion. Since, quality of judgments of the petitioner was ‘below average,’ therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in finding the petitioner not suitable for promotion to the post of additional district and sessions judge. This is in perfect consonance with the rules reproduced above,” observed the high court bench.