Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Neha Priya vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi Through Its ... on 10 January, 2020

Author: Hima Kohli

Bench: Hima Kohli, Asha Menon

$~19 & 20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 242/2020 and 243/2020
     NEHA PRIYA                                        ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate.
                      versus
     HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
     GENERAL & ANR                                  ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rhishabh Jetley
                      and Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocates for R-1/DHC
                      Mr. N.K. Singh, proxy for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat,
                      SC for R-2/GNCTD.
                      AND
     HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH & ORS                         ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate.
                    versus
      HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
      GENERAL & ANR                               ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Mr. Rhishabh Jetley
                    and Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocates for R-1/DHC
                    Mr. N.K. Singh, proxy for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat,
                    SC for R-2/GNCTD.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
                    ORDER

% 10.01.2020 C.M. No. 753/2020 (by the petitioners for directions) in W.P.(C) 242/2020 C.M. No. 754/2020 (by the petitioners for directions) in W.P.(C) 243/2020

1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1/DHC to enable them to participate in the DHJS Examination, 2019.

2. We may note that the petitioners are in service of the subordinate judiciary. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since the petitioners and many other similarly situated petitioners have laid a challenge to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 and notices have been issued in the said petitions by a co-ordinate Bench [WP(C) No. 1595/2018] and further, the respondents were directed to accept their applications provisionally for the post of District Judge, similar interim orders may be passed in the present petitions.

3. Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/DHC opposes the interim relief prayed for by the petitioners and states that reliance cannot be placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the order dated 28.2.2018 passed in W.P(C) No. 1959/2018 as subsequently, in a batch of appeals including SLP (C) No. 14156/2015 entitled Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi, an order has been passed by the Supreme Court on 10.5.2019, clearly stating that no interim orders of such a nature ought to be granted, particularly, when the Rules make it clear that direct recruitment has to be from the Bar and any interim orders of the nature prayed for being in the nature of final relief, would render the position irreversible at the stage of final disposal of the petitions.

4. For ready reference, we may extract below the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor (supra):-

"It was contended that in certain cases, interim relief has been granted by this Court and by virtue of the interim directions issued, certain in-service incumbents participated in the exam and other process by staking claim to be W.P.(C) 242/2020 Page 2 of 5 appointed in the quota which is basically meant for lawyers. Since the entitlement of Civil Judges to occupy posts of Bar quota is yet to be decided by hearing matter finally and in case such interim orders are continued to be granted and the Civil Judges from the judiciary are permitted to be appointed as against the quota which basically meant for practicing lawyers, serious prejudice may be caused to the Bar incumbents. In the past, for the last 65-66 years no person from the Civil Judge cadre were permitted to stake their claims as against the posts which are reserved for direct recruitment from the Bar.

It is settled proposition of law that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim measure. When direct recruitment has to be from Bar, we cannot continue to grant interim order of final nature leaving the situation virtually irreversible, an incumbent from Bar has to be deprived of the post given to in-service candidate which is reserved for Bar, question of seniority would also arise and in case relief is not finally granted several other complications would arise. In any case such ad-hoc arrangements by appointing such incumbents is not at all warranted that too in higher judiciary unless and until the case is decided in favour of in-service candidates.

XXX XXX XXX Serious complications would arise in case ultimately in- service candidates are not found eligible for such quota. As such we are not inclined to pass any further interim orders either by permitting in service candidates to stake their claims in the examination or for being appointed as against the quota reserved for Bar. It would not be proper to stop all recruitments for years together, so as to prevent complications as to seniority as well as the quota which is required to be maintained.

It was submitted that if such an anomaly is permitted to be continued, the posts reserved for the Bar members in the High Court too will have to be filled even from the District Judges who might have earlier practiced for 10 years. Be that as it may, as we are not on that issue, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is not appropriate to pass such interim orders any more." (emphasis added)

5. In view of the aforesaid view expressed by the Supreme Court, we are afraid that no interim orders of the nature prayed for in the interim applications can be granted in favour of the petitioners.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely on a subsequent order dated 19.7.2019, passed by the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor (supra) and states that the petitioners herein belong to the "first class of persons" referred to in the said order as they have not yet taken the examination and are similarly situated as those petitioners who have been allowed to take their examination, while directing that their results would be placed in a sealed cover.

7. We may note that the aforesaid order takes note of the earlier order passed on 10.5.2019 and referred to hereinabove clearly stating that interim orders of a final nature ought not to be granted. We therefore decline to grant interim relief to the petitioners.

8. The interim applications are dismissed.

W.P.(C) 242/2020 and W.P.(C) 243/2020 The writ petitions be listed on 27.5.2020, in the category of „Directions‟ along with W.P.(C) Nos. 1959/2018 and 1977/2018, to await the judgment of the Supreme Court.

HIMA KOHLI, J ASHA MENON, J JANUARY 10, 2020 ap W.P.(C) 242/2020 Page 5 of 5