“No Effective Relief Can Be Granted At This Stage”: SC Dismisses Appeals By Legal Officials For Entry-Level Judicial Officer Appointments From 17 Years Ago
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals by an Assistant Public Prosecutor and a Stamp Reporter seeking entry-level Judicial Officer appointments from 17 years ago, holding that no effective relief could be granted at this stage.
The Bench had to consider the issue regarding the eligibility of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and Stamp Reporter, who had appeared in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, for appointment to the post of Judicial Officer (entry-level). The Court noted that the selection process was completed in the year 2008 and considering the period elapsed after the advertisement, it was held that adjudicating the issue was not in the “public interest.”
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “Considering the period elapsed after the advertisement, selection, and appointments made more than one and a half decades back in the matter of appointments to the post of Judicial Officers (entry level), in our view, no effective relief can be granted at this stage. Appointment to the Judicial Service will not be justified at this stage at the entry level, even with the grant of consequential benefits notionally.”
Senior Advocates Pretesh Kapur and Vinay Navare represented the appellant, while Senior Advocates Rana Mukherjee and Jaideep Gupta appeared for the respondents.
The appellants initially appeared in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination in 2007. By 2008, the selection and appointment process had been finalised, and other candidates were appointed.
The Supreme Court reiterated its decision in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, where the Constitution Bench observed, “We cannot lose sight of the fact that all the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial office and have been working over a length of time. Unseating them would, besides being harsh, result in a situation where the higher judiciary would lose the services of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over the last six years in the post of District Judge. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to direct the induction of the petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service at the present stage”
In the present case as well, given that 17 years had passed since the date of advertisement and that other appointed candidates would have reached senior positions gaining substantial experience as judicial officers, the Court held that “by lapse of time it would not be in public interest to adjudicate the issue on merit.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Accordingly, both the civil appeals stand disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications (if any) shall also stand disposed of.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals.
Cause Title: Sankar Kumar Das v. Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 824)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocates Pretesh Kapur and Vinay Navare; AOR Siddhartha Chowdhury and Sarad Kumar Singhania; Advocates Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar
Respondents: Senior Advocates Rana Mukherjee and Jaideep Gupta; AOR Kunal Chatterji, Astha Sharma and Ranjan Mukherjee; Advocates Rohit Bansal, Istela Jameel, Anju Thomas and Bhanu Mishra