New Delhi: The Supreme Court has stayed the promotion of 68 judicial officers who appointed district judges by the Gujarat government.
LiveLaw has reported that a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar stayed the recommendation made by the Gujarat high court for the promotion of these judicial officers, citing that the Gujarat government issued a notification while a plea on the legality of these promotions is already pending.
“State govt issued notification during pendency of plea and after this court issued notice…We stay high court recommendation and the government notification. Respective promotees are sent to their original post which they were holding before promotion,” Justice MR Shah said.
The names of these promotees do not figure within the first 68 candidates’ list.
“Promotions must be made on principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test. Recommendations by high court and subsequent government notification are illegal,” the Supreme Court said.
Two unsuccessful candidates had pleaded with the Supreme Court that the appointments made by a March notification on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit principle be stayed because they were in contravention to recruitment rules. LiveLaw reports that these rules have it that district judge posts should be filled up by reserving 65% of the seats on a merit-cum-seniority basis and on the candidates passing a suitability test.
The apex court had issued notices to the Gujarat high court and the state government. The state government notified the judges’ promotions a week after this, leading Justice Shah to call it an executive overreach.
On April 28, the Supreme Court had been stern in its response and called the state government’s order unfortunate.
“We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order when this court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed issuing notice. It is to be noted that the selection was of the year 2022, therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order,” it said.
Note: In an earlier version of the original piece, LiveLaw had noted that the judge who had given the verdict that convicted Rahul Gandhi in the 2019 defamation case was part of the 68. This reference has now been removed from the original article. Consequently, The Wire, too, has chosen to remove the relevant line.