Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints Shri Anoop Chitkara, to be a Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court with effect from the date he
assumes charge of his office.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, to be Additional Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, for a period of two years, with effect from the date she assumes charge of her office.


[Notification dt. 29-05-2019]

Ministry of Law and Justice

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of N.V. Anjaria, J. dismissed a petition challenging the eligibility criteria in Advertisement No. RC-0719/2019 published by the respondents, for the position of Civil Judge, holding that a Deputy Manager working in the legal branch of a bank could not be treated as an employee working in the ‘department allied to Court’.

Rule 7(2)(b) of the Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005 states that the eligibility required for selection to the position of a Civil Judge. is that a candidate “must be practicing as an Advocate in Courts of Civil and/or Criminal Jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of application; or must be working in the Courts or other allied Departments on the last date fixed for receipt of application.” 

Petitioner herein who was working as a Deputy Manager (Law) in the real estate department of a bank, was determined as ineligible for the post of Civil Judge and his application was rejected on the ground that it did not fall within the aforestated eligibility criterion. The petition questioned the ambit of “other allied Departments” in Rule 7(2)(b) and whether it included a candidate working as a Deputy Manager (Law) in a Government Bank.

Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Jenil M. Shah submitted that the petitioner had cleared the All India Bar Examination and had the license to practice as an Advocate in the courts of India. Thereafter, he was appointed as the Deputy Manager (Legal) of State Bank of India. His work description indicated that he had been dealing with all kinds of legal work, including consultation and drafting. Hence, there was no reason to exclude the bank from “other allied Departments” and exclusion of bank from the ‘list of allied departments’ as stated under Instruction 10 of the Advertisement, was unjust and arbitrary.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent, Shalin Mehta, submitted that the word ‘other allied departments’ in Rule 7(2)(b) has been used in conjunction with the word ‘courts’. The categories enumerated under the head of ‘other allied departments’ in Instruction 10 were those by which only the employees associated with courts or those familiar with court work are able to apply for the post of Civil Judges.

The Court noted that the impugned instruction categorized four departments as ‘allied to Court’: (i) High Courts or any courts subordinate; (ii) Office of the Government Pleader, Gujarat High Court; (iii) Office of the Government Pleader, City Civil Court Ahmedabad; and (iv) Legal Section or Legal Department, Government of Gujarat.

It was opined that selection of eligibility conditions is within the domain of the employer or the appointing authority; and judicial review thereof may extend only to see that the norms prescribed and the eligibility contemplated are relevant and have a rational nexus with the post concerned. Reliance in this regard was placed on Chandigarh Admn. v. Usha Kheterapal Waie, (2011) 9 SCC 645.

Further, the Court relied on K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 1985 Supp SCC 714 and applied the interpretation rule of noscitur a sociis which states that where general words follow a specific word, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified. It was opined that the categorization of ‘allied departments’ in the advertisement was aimed at inviting candidates having proficiency and experience in relation to Court. Thus, there was a balance and blend between the context and purpose of the impugned condition.

In view of the above, it was held that the petitioner was not eligible for participating in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Civil Judge. [Avinash Detha v. Registrar (Recruitment), 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 804, Order dated 25-04-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Judicial Officer, as Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.

“The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. resolves to recommend that Shri Alok Kumar Verma, Judicial Officer, be appointed as Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court.”


[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.

“For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of Shri Viju Abraham we have carefully scrutinized the material already on record as well as the further information received from Kerala High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Viju Abraham is suitable for elevation to the High Court.”

Collegium resolves to recommend that Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate, be appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.


[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Legislation UpdatesNotifications

S.O. 1661(E)—Whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 (34 of 2008) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government had, vide notification number S.O. 2159(E) dated the 1st September, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), notified the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, as the Special Court for the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act having jurisdiction throughout the State of Himachal Pradesh for the trial of Scheduled Offences;

And whereas, Shri Virender Singh, District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, who was appointed as the Judge to preside over the said Special Court vide notification number S.O. 1575(E) dated the 16th May, 2017, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), has been transferred;

Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 (34 of 2008) and in supersession of the notification number S.O. 1575(E) dated the 16th May, 2017, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, on the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, hereby appoints Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, District and Sessions Judge, Shimla, as the Judge to preside over the said Special Court.


[Notification dt. 29-04-2019]

Ministry of Home Affairs

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, as Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Proposal for appointment of following two Advocates, as Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court:

1. Anoop Chitkara, and
2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

Collegium comprising of Ranjana Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. recommended that:

(1) Satyen Vaidya, (2) Anoop Chitkara, and (3) Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocates appointed as Judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

The above recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court on 11-01-2019, in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues has the concurrence of the Chief Minister and the Governor of Himachal Pradesh.


[Dated: 30-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions