SC to hear plea against promotion of judge who convicted Rahul Gandhi, 67 others

Advocate Purvish Malkan, on behalf of the petitioners, sought the apex court’s direction to set aside the selection list issued by the HC on March 10 and the subsequent notification of the state government appointing them. It has also sought that the HC be directed to prepare a fresh merit list on the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

On April 28, the Supreme Court had expressed its dissatisfaction with the HC for issuing a notification on April 18 on the transfer of the judges on a sub judice matter. According to the notification, Varma is being transferred as an additional district judge to the Rajkot district court.

The SC noted this transgression to be prima facie a move “overreaching the court’s process”. To this effect, the apex court sought an explanation from the secretary of the state government on “the extraordinary urgency shown in the matter in giving promotion and issuing the notification dated 18.04.2023 granting the promotion, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.”

“It is very unfortunate that, despite the fact that the respondents, more particularly, the state government, was aware of the present proceedings and the fact that, in the present proceedings, this Court made the notice returnable on 28.04.2023, the state government has issued the promotion order dated 18.04.2023, i.e., after the receipt of the notice issued by this court in the present proceedings. In the promotion order dated 18.04.2023, even the state government has stated that the promotions which are given are subject to the outcome of the proceedings. We do not appreciate the haste and hurry in which the State has approved and passed the promotion order dated 18.04.2023, when this Court was seized with the matter and a detailed order was passed while issuing the notice. It is to be noted that the selection was of the year 2022 and therefore there was no extraordinary urgency in passing the promotion order and that too when this Court was seized of the matter,” SC noted.

The court also sought a reply from the HC specifically on whether the promotions to the post in question are to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority and to place on record the entire merit list.

The petitioners submitted that despite obtaining higher marks than many of the selected candidates, those with lower marks have been appointed thus giving “a go-by to the principle of merit-cum-seniority and instead, making appointments on the basis of seniority-cum-merit”.

According to the recruitment rules, the post of the district judge is to be filled in by keeping 65 per cent reservation on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test, the petitioners stated. A division bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar had, on April 13, issued notices to the respondents, which included the state government and the HC and the 68 selected candidates. The respondents are expected to reply by April 28.