Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Allahabad HC: Judicial Officers with Less Than 3 Years of Service are not Fit for UPHJS Promotions

2 min read
Judge Gavel Law Insider

Debangana Ray

Published on: 10 June, 2022, 19:45 IST

Allahabad High Court in a recent case dismissed the petitions of 39 Judicial Officers and the UP Judicial Services Association who sought court’s order to appear for the suitability test for promotion in UP Higher Judicial services.

The petitioners currently work in the posts of the Civil Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Hence, the petitioners argued that in order to maintain the quota reserved under 1975 rules, civil judges over 3 years of services must be allowed to appear in the suitability test for Higher judicial services.

However, the High Court released a notification stating that a suitability test of 200 officers was to be held on May 11.

Thus, resolution was passed by High Court stating that no officer of Nyayik Seva would be eligible for higher judicial services unless they held a post of CJM or Civil judge was challenged.

According to the petitioners, the resolution must be set aside and they should be allowed to appear for the test.

The Selection and Appointment Committee’s decision of including seniority plus merit in selecting officers for Higher Judicial services should not be interfered with.

The Division Bench comprising of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan & Subhash Vidyarthi stated that, “The Committee was also of the opinion that by inclusion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) who have not completed three years on the said post would result in higher number of the Courts of Civil Judge (Senior Division) falling vacant and this would create a situation where the cadre of Civil Judge (Se- nior Division) will collapse owing to huge number of vacant Courts.”

“Therefore, the list of officers prepared under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 consequent to the aforesaid decision, needs no interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction.”