AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 121

Statement of Replies Received from Various High Courts

S. No.

Question

Orissa

Punjab and Haryana

Rajasthan

Sikkim

1. Recruitment to lowest cadre of Judiciary by P.S.C. 1. Yes. 1. Yes. 1. Yes. 1. No. Recruitment made on recommendations of Selection Committee.
(i) Does it get adequate response? (i) Yes. (i) Yes. (i) Yes. (i) Not advertised yet.
(ii) Is the Zone large enough to select the good candidates and reject the unwanted? (ii) Yes. (ii) Yes. (ii) Yes. (ii) Before 1975 during the Chogyal's time lawyers not allowed to practice so enough lawyers who qualify.
(iii) If the response is not adequate then reasons for the same. (iii.- (iii.- (iii.-
II. Whether provision for direct recruitment at the middle level of Judiciary? If yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
(i) Quota. (i) No quota. (i) 1/3rd of direct recruitment. (i) 1/3rd of direct recruitment (i) 1/3
(ii) Proportion. (ii) 25% of the permanent cadre usually. (ii) 2/3rd promotion from P.C.S. and H.C.S. (ii.- (ii) 1 :3
(iii) Period of recruitment. (iii) Takes about a year. (iii) (iii) As and when vacancies arise. (iii) No direct recruit yet appointed.
(iv) Adequacy of response. (iv) Good. (iv) Not very good. (iv) Good. (iv) Not good.
(v) Good candidates whether available? If not-reasons. (v) Not getting expected quality of candidates, because gap between emolument and earnings of lawyers has increased. (v) Direct recruits below all promotees officiating against temporary posts. Long time before appointed as DJ also reduces chances of elevation to HC. (v) Quite suitable can didates available.
III. 1. Whether able lawyers with good practice willing to accept judgeship in High Court? 1. Yes 1. Small No. of lawyers with large practice do not accept. But competent lawyers would accept if offer made at proper stage and much time does not elapse between initiation and final decision of their case (experience of Allahabad Bar & Bench). 1. Yes. 1. Hardly any efficient lawyer with good practice.
2. Revised emoluments if sufficient attraction 2. Yes 2. Should contribute in persuasion. 2.-
IV. Relevant considerations for appointment to High Court.
(i) Income. (i) Yes. (i) Yes, but income alone not a good guide. (i.-
(ii) Standing at the Bar. (ii) Yes. (ii) Yes. (ii.-
(iii) Caste. (iii) Yes. (iii) No. (iii.-
(iv) Reservation principle, if any, or any other consideration. (iv) No. But in Bihar (When he was C.J.) (some backward class candidates with reasonable capacity were picked up. (iv) No. only on bona fide overall merit. (iv.-
To ensure that the person is upright, gentleman with strong moral fibre.
V. 1. Whether power to transfer under Article 222 and as interpreted by SC in Sankal Chand Gupta's case has acted as a dampener? If yes-illustrate. 1. Yes, Illustrations may be picked up from confidential records of Patna High Court. 1. No. - Not applicable in this High Court. Acts as a dempener because Govt. abuses their power.
2. Income-tax Assessment Order-If insisted on. 2. Candidates are asked to give returns of last 3-4 years but do not insist. Not applicable in this High Court. Acts as a dampener because Govt. abuses their power. - -
VI. 1. Whether present strength of Judges adequate to deal with inflow of cases and backlog. 1. No. 1. Yes., If vacancies are filled in time 1. Yes., If vacancies are filled in time Does not arises in this court. Only the Judges including C.J. One post vacant. Only few cases 60 filled per year. No work for more than 60 days.
2. Strength fixed a/c to 2. 2.
(i) Institution of cases. (i) Yes. (i) Yes.
(ii) Population basis. (ii) No. (ii.-
(iii) Area of the state. (iii) Yes. (iii.-
3. Is the strength reviewed? If yes-at what interval? 3. Not done since last 4 years. In Patna it was done in quick succession. 3. Need basis.
4. When, was it last reviewed? 4. 1986. 4. In 1985.
VII. 1. Under Article 224, whether additional judges, are appointed? 1. Yes. 1. Yes. 1. Yes.
2. Time lapse in confirmation-whether anyone not confirmed. 2. Less than a year. 2. When permanent vacancy occurs. 2. P.D. Gattani, S.N. Beedvania & M.B. Sharma not confirmed. M.B. Sharma after two years directly appointed as permanent Judge.
VIII. Enormous delay in filling vacancies:
(i) Causes. (i) Political interference. Proper attention not given at all stages. (i.- Recommendations for filling the vacancies are initiated by CJ. only.
(ii) At what end delay occurs? (ii) At all stages except C.J.I. mostly occurs at C.M's stage. (ii) Yes.
(iii) Whether C.J. recommends promptly in view of anticipated vacancy. (iii) No occasion to deal with such situation. (iii) Yes.
(iv) Trace the movement of file containing recommendations. (iv) (iv.-
(v) Whether personal division 'discussion between C.J. & C.M. (v) Yes. (v) Yes. (v) C.M. has made his suggestion
(vi) If helpful. (vi) Yes. (vi) Yes. (vi) emphasis being on appointment of a local candidate not withstanding his efficiency and suitability.
(vii) Whether C.M. recommends names? (vii) Yes. (vii) Yes.
(viii) Illustrate, if recommendation approved by C.J., C.M., C.J.I., by but rejected by Union Govt. (viii) No. (viii.-
IX. Delay in filling vacancies from 1980 till date.

-

-

-

X. Solutions to make the system more resilient, flexible and result oriented. Defect not within the system but with human institutions dealing with this matter. If mandatory, time limits are fixed for processing the matter and some sort of accountability is fixed on defaulting agency for failure it may improve the position. Expeditious consideration by all Constitutional authorities is largest single factor which can reduce delay.

S. No.

Question

Calcutta

Allahabad

Himachal Pradesh

Bombay

I. Recruitment to lowest cadre of Judiciary by P.S.C. 1. Yes, 50% by West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) and 50% from the bar. 1. Yes. 1. Yes. 1. Yes.
(i) Does it get adequate response? (i) Yes. (i) Yes.
(ii) Is the Zone large enough to select the good candidates and reject the unwanted. (ii) Quality of persons selected not upto the mark. General standard at the Bar, low standard of Legal education also is a contributing factor. (ii) Yes. (ii) Most of the candidates not able to come to the mini-mum expectations 4 secured marks above 60% and so was the position to select good candidates. Some candidates not able to complete probation satisfactorily.
(iii) If the response is not adequate then reasons for the same. (iii.- (iii) Conditions of service not good. Accommodation main problem. Promotional avenues are less. Income front the Bar is much Higher.
II. Whether provision for direct recruitment at the middle level of Judiciary? If yes:- 1. No. All recruitments made from west Bengal Civil Service (Judicial). Yes. Yes. Yes.
(i) Quata. (i) 15% by direct recruitment. (i) 1/3rd by direct recruitment. (i) No quota.
(ii) Proportion. (ii.- (ii) 2/3rd for promotes. 1/3rd for direct recruits. (ii) 50-50 proportion normally maintained. In city Civil Court 2/3rd Bar recruits are taken, Small causes Courts-50% from the Bar.
(iii) Period of recruitment, (iii) As and when vacancy arises. (iii) Nothing fixed normally after two-three years.
(iv) Adequacy of response. (iv) Good. (iv) Of late, fitness of candidates was not upto the expectations, causes as in one above.
(v) Good candidates whether available? If not-reasons. (v) No problem.
III. 1. Whether able lawyers with good practice willing to accept judgeship in High Court? 1. Some not willing to accept. 1. Yes. 1. Yes. 1. No. practice at the Bar has risen sharply while emoluments are static.
2. Revised emoluments if sufficient attraction. 2. Not all provisions relating to, revised emoluments in force. Amendment to Part of Ilnd Sch. of Constitution awaiting ratification of requisite state Assemblies. 2. After increase in emoluments there should be no difficulty to attract competent persons. 2. May improve. 2. May persuade some good lawyers but the gap between earnings of a lawyer and Judges salary is considerable. To some extent compensation by states, pension, etc.
IV. Relevant considerations for appointment to High Court.
(i) Income. (i) Yes, but not decisive. 1. Yes. 1. Yes. Primary consideration is ability and suitability.
(ii) Standing at the Bar. (ii) Yes. 2. Yes. 2. Yes. (1) Yes, but quantum consideration.
(iii) Caste. (iii) No. 3. Not irrelevant considered only to avoid appointments of persons belonging to the same caste. 3 (2) Yes, if a person with limited standing taken to the bench then it will become difficult to persuade advocates with higher standing to accept.
(iv) Reservation principle, if any or any other consideration. (iv) No. 4 4. Representation to women, SC and ST and BC (if available)-one of the main criteria. (3) Not applicable but attempts are made to ensure a good candidate from minority community given preference.
V. 1. Whether power to transfer under Article 222 and as interpreted by SC in Sankal Chand Gupta's case has acted as a dampener? If yes-illustrate. No. dampening effect. No. Since the policy of having 1/3rd of Judges from outside the States not implemented. Yes. As transfer disrupts family life.
2. Income-tax Assessment Order-If insisted on.
VI. 1. Whether present strength of Judges adequate to deal with inflow of cases and backlog. 1. No. 1. Yes. 1. Grossly inadequate even increased sanctioned strength of 60 Judges would not be sufficient, would be difficult to give accommodation to 60 Judges.
2. Strength fixed a/c to 2 2 2
(i) institution of cases, (i) Yes. (i) Yes. (i) Yes.
(ii) Population basis. (ii.- (ii.- (ii) Not possible to say.
(iii) Area of the state. (iii.- (iii.- (iii.-(iv) 1986
3. Is the strength reviewed? If yes-at what interval?
4. When, was it last reviewed?
VII. 1. Under Article 224, whether additional fudges, are appointed? 1. Yes 1. Yes, Once ad hoc judges appointed.
2. Time lapse in confirmation-whether anyone not confirmed. (2) About one year, all confirmed. (2) As and when vacancy arises U.R. Lalit and R.S. Padheje not confirmed. Mridul, J. not confirmed in his turn and resigned. P.R. Bhatt, Raju Bhonsle, H.N. Mody and P.G. Palshikas not confirmed because no permanent vacancies, B.J. Pare not confirmed on his own request.
VIII. Enormous delay in filling vacancies
(i) Causes. (i),
(ii) At what end delay occurs. (ii)
(iii) Whether C.J. recommends promptly in view of anticipated vacancy. (iii) Not known, need not to be possible to send stated here. recommendations on time because vacancy might be unexpected, verify the antecedents, etc.
(iv) Trace the movement of file containing recommendations. (iv),
(v) Whether personal division discussion between C.J. & C.M. (v),
(vi) If helpful. (vi) Yes. discussions useful
(vii) Whether C.M. recommends name. (vii) Yes. But no pressure,
(viii) Illustrate, if recommendation approved by C.J., C.M., C.J.I., by but rejected by Union Govt. (viii).-
IX. Delay in filling vacancies from 1980 till date. Causes for delay well Known, need not to be stated here.
X. Solution to make the system more resilient, flexible and result oriented. Only increasing the strength of Judges will not solve the problem. Persons who have with commitment to justice and excellence should be appointed. Present system adequate if convention evolved that Chief Minister accepts the names of Chief Justice devotion to duty coupled and in case of difficulty prompt discussion is held. Misapprehension at both sides clear. At central level also scrutiny of recommendation should be done at single level rather than at different points.


A New Forum for Judicial Appointments Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys