Supreme Court: In a resolution passed dated 12-04-2023, the Supreme Court collegium headed by Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, C.J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph J.J., recommended:
➢ Elevation of the Judicial Officer Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal to the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court in consultation with the two senior most colleagues made the recommendation dated 02-09-2022 which was received by the Supreme Court from the Department of Justice dated 01-04-2023.
The proposal was processed by invoking Para 14 of the Memorandum of Procedure which stated that if the comments of the Governor as advised by the Chief Minister were not received within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from the Chief Justice of the High Court, it shall be presumed by the Union Minister of Law and Justice that the constitutional authorities in the State had nothing to add to the proposal and could proceed accordingly.
The Collegium scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record and perused the observations made by the Department of Justice as well as the complaint received against the candidate.
The Collegium took note of the fact that the Intelligence Bureau had reported that he enjoyed good personal and professional image and nothing adverse had come to notice against his integrity, nor Department of Justice had pointed out anything adverse in regard to his suitability for elevation. It was further noted that he belonged to the Other Backward Class category.
For the reasons stated above, the resolution collegium opined that he was suitable to be elevated to the position of the Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
➢ Further, the Supreme Court resolution dated 12-04-2023 recommended elevation of Judicial Officer Vivek Bharti Sharma, Senior Advocate Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate Pankaj Purohit and Advocate Subhash Upadhyay as Judges of Uttarakhand High Court.
The Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court in consultation with his two senior most colleagues made the recommendation dated 07-09-2022 which received concurrence of the Chief Minister and the Governor of the State. Subsequently the file was forwarded to the Supreme Court from the Department of Justice dated 01-04-2023.
The Collegium scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record and perused the observations made by the Department of Justice as well as the complaint received against the candidates.
The Collegium took note of the fact that the Intelligence Bureau had reported that they enjoyed a good personal and professional image and nothing adverse had come to notice against their integrity.
Though Senior Advocate Rakesh Thapliyal had crossed the age of 55 years, the Collegium of the High Court had recommended his name looking into his credentials, reputation and performance in the Court. Therefore, the Collegium opined that he was suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court. The Collegium further opined that since Advocate Pankaj Purohit also fulfilled the age and income criteria, he was suitable for appointment as a Judge of Uttarakhand High Court. It was also stated that Advocate Subhash Upadhyay was a competent counsel practising with domain expertise in service law, thus was suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court.
The Collegium stated that the Judicial Officer Vivek Bharti Sharma had joined judicial service in the year 2006 and had considerable experience on the judicial side. He was the senior most of the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service and was presently posted as Registrar General in the High Court. Though, on the date of occurrence of vacancy, he had crossed the age limit of 58.5 years, but considering his outstanding assessment as Judicial Officer and as Registrar General, the Collegium had recommended his name as being suitable candidate for appointment as a Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court.
The Collegium clarified that their inter se seniority would be fixed as per the existing practice.
➢ The Collegium Resolution dated 12-04-2023 had further recommended the names of 7 District Judges for appointment as Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
(i) Shri Roopesh Chandra Varshney
(ii) Ms. Anuradha Shukla
(iii) Shri Sanjeev Sudhakar Kalgaonkar
(iv) Shri Prem Narayan Singh
(v) Shri Achal Kumar Paliwal
(vi) Shri Hirdesh
(vii) Shri Avnindra Kumar Singh
The Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High in consultation with two senior most colleagues recommended the elevation dated 23-11-2023 which was further endorsed by the Chief Minister and the Governor of the State. The file was received in the Supreme Court from Department of Justice dated 07-04-2023.
The Collegium scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record and perused the observations made by the Department of Justice as well as the complaint received against the candidates.
While perusing the file of Judicial Officer Roopesh Chandra Varshney, it was noted that he had joined the judicial service date 28-09-1987 and was the senior most member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. His judicial performance, as assessed by the Evaluation Committee of Judges, was very good. On the date of the recommendation by the Collegium of the High Court, he was about 59.10 years of age. He had since retired from judicial service on reaching the age of superannuation. However, on the date of the vacancy against which his name had been recommended, he was 58.03 years old and thus qualified with reference to the prescribed age criterion. Having legitimate expectation based on the long period of service rendered by him, the Collegium opined that he was suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In refence to the elevation of Judicial Officer Anuradha Shukla, it was stated that she had joined judicial service dated 17-09-1990 and was member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. Her judicial performance, as assessed by the Evaluation Committee of Judges, was very good and the annual confidential reports of the candidate were noteworthy, thus the Collegium opined that she was a suitable candidate as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Collegium scrutinised the file of Judicial Office Sanjeev Sudhakar Kalgaonkar and stated that he had joined the judicial service dated 24-04-1994 was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. He was presently functioning on deputation as the Secretary General of the Supreme Court. His judicial performance, as assessed by the Evaluation Committee of Judges, was very good and the annual confidential reports of the candidate were noteworthy, thus the Collegium opined that he was a suitable candidate for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Upon perusing the file of Judicial Officer Prem Narayan Singh, the Collegium had stated that he had joined the judicial service dated 16-07-199 and was a senior member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. On the date of recommendation by the Collegium of the High Court, he was about 59.03 years of age. As on date, he is 59.07 years of age and was due to retire shortly from judicial service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, on the date of vacancy against which his name had been recommended, his age was 58.03 years and thus qualified in terms of the prescribed age criterion. Having regard to the above and the legitimate expectation based on the long period of service rendered by him, the Collegium opined that he was suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Collegium referred to the file of Judicial Officer Achal Kumar Paliwal and stated that he had joined judicial service dated 14-07-1990 and was senior member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. On the date of recommendation by the Collegium of the High Court, he was about 58.10 years of age. As on date, he is 59.03 years of age. However, on the date of vacancy against which his name has been recommended, his age was 58.03 years and thus qualified in terms of the prescribed age criterion. The Collegium opined that he was suitable for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In reference to the file of Judicial Officer Hirdesh, it was stated that he had joined judicial service dated 05-07-1990 and was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. It was noted that the annual confidential reports of the candidate were noteworthy thus, the Collegium opined that he was a suitable candidate for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Collegium Resolution in view of the candidature of Judicial Officer Avindra Kumar Singh stated that he had joined the judicial service dated 31-05-1990 and was a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. It was noted that the annual confidential reports of the candidate were noteworthy thus, the Collegium opined that he was a suitable candidate for appointment as a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
It was clarified that their inter se seniority was to be fixed as per the existing practice.
