Rajesh Kumar Bagga and others and Sunil Kumar and Satish Kumar and others and Devender Goyal and others V. Union of India and State of Haryana and Punjab and Haryana High Court

CWP/30238/2019

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the qualification criteria specified in Rule 11 (bb) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which were applicable to the recruitment process initiated on 07.08.2019. The petitioners contested the requirements that included being an income tax assessee for the last three years, having a gross professional income of not less than five lakhs per annum, and having conducted 50 cases in the preceding three years. The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik, upheld the criteria as reasonable and non-arbitrary. The court also noted that the recruitment process had been completed and new advertisements issued, thus rendering the petitions infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699418 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik and others, (2013) 5 SCC 277
• Laws Referred To: Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: S K YADAV; TUSHAR WADHWA; SHOBIT PHUTELA; RAJEEV ANAND; KANWAL GOYAL; GOVIND TANWAR; MAMTA TALWAR
• Keywords: Income tax assessee; Professional income; Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules; Qualification criteria; Case handling experience
• Section: 11 BB

Judgement Text

"CWP Nos.30238 of 2019 and other connected cases 2024:PHHC:010660-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.01.2024 1. CWP No.30238 of 2019(O&M) Rajesh Kumar Bagga and others ......Petitioners Vs Union of India and others .....Respondents 2. CWP No.34136 of 2019(O&M) Sunil Kumar ......Petitioner Vs State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 3. CWP No.33371 of 2019(O&M) Satish Kumar and others ......Petitioners Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and others .....Respondents 4. CWP No.33433 of 2019(O&M) Devender Goyal and others ......Petitioners Vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Singh Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP No.30238 of 2019. Mr. Tushar Wadhwa, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos.33433 and 33371 of 2019. Mr. Shobit Phutela, Sr. Panel Counsel for Union of India in CWP No.30238 of 2019. Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP No.33371 of 2019 for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP No.34136 of 2019 and PRINCE SAINI 2024.01.31 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP Nos.30238 of 2019 and other connected cases 2024:PHHC:010660-DB 2 for respondent No.3 in CWP No.30238 of 2019. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Govind Tanwar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP No.30238 of 2019. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral) [1]. Vide this common order, the aforementioned writ petitions are disposed of. [2]. Challenge herein is made to the condition of qualification mentioned in Rule 11 (bb) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which was the requisite requirement for the advertisement (Annexure P-2) for the process, which was set in motion on 07.08.2019. [3]. It is not disputed that the said process has already been completed and fresh advertisement has also been issued. In CWP No.30238 of 2019, out of five petitioners, petitioners No.1, 3 and 5 have already been appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge in different States. Therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous qua them. It is also informed that the said process stands duly completed for the advertisement in question and therefore, the petitioners's grouse as such that the criteria fixed of being an income tax assessee for the last three assessment years preceding the date of application having gross professional income of not less than rupees five lakhs per annum and requirement of having conducted 50 cases in the preceding three years, cannot be held to be arbitrary in any manner. The rule is salutary in view of judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Aggarwal Vs. Keshav Kaushik and PRINCE SAINI 2024.01.31 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP Nos.30238 of 2019 and other connected cases 2024:PHHC:010660-DB 3 others, (2013) 5 SCC 277. Fresh advertisement has already been issued on 15.11.2023 for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Haryana Superior Judicial Service and the petitioners are thus free to apply for the same if they are eligible. It is even to be noticed that four years period has gone by and the petitioners should now not been able to get the requisite number of cases on board and also should have filed income tax returns so that they are liable to be considered for the post of Additional District Judge. [4]. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any interim order in their favour at the initial stage, the matter is not required to be gone into for further consideration. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of disposing of the writ petitions as the same have apparently become infructuous. Even in CWP No.33371 of 2019, the application for appearing in 2023 process was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. [5]. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off having been rendered infructuous. [6]. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 25.01.2024 Prince Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2024.01.31 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment "