JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The matter initially related to the appointment of Class IV
employees in the courts subordinate to Delhi High Court as the dispute
arose about the continuity of the employees appointed on ad-hoc basis
for 89 days which stood extended for the same period after same
interval from time to time. The matter reached the Delhi High Court
and ultimately before this Court. This court vide order dated
10.5.2012 took up the matter in a larger perspective taking cognizance
of perpetual complaints regarding irregularities and illegalities in
the recruitments of staff in the subordinate courts throughout the
country and in order to ensure the feasibility of centralising these
recruitments and to make them transparent and transferable. This Court
suo motu issued notice to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts
and to the States for filing their response mainly on two points viz.
(i) why the recruitment be not centralized; and (ii) why the relevant
rules dealing with service conditions of the entire staff be not
amended to make them as transferable posts. All the States and High
Courts have submitted their response and all of them are duly
represented in the court.
(2.)This Court had appointed Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior
counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist the court. The matter was heard on
28.1.2014 and deliberations took place at length wherein all the
learned counsel appearing for the States as well as for the High
Courts suggested that the matter should be dealt with in a larger
perspective i.e. also for appointments of employees in the High Court
and courts subordinate to the High Court which must include Class IV
posts also. A large number of instances have been pointed out on the
basis of the information received under the Right to Information Act,
2005 of cases not only of irregularity but of favouritism also in
making such appointments. It has been suggested by the learned counsel
appearing in the matter that this court has a duty not only to check
illegality, irregularity, corruption, nepotism and favouritism in
judicial institutions, but also to provide guidelines to prevent the
menace of back-door entries of employees who subsequently are ordered
to be regularised.
(3.)It was in view of the above that this Court vide its earlier
orders had asked learned counsel appearing for the States as well as
the High Courts to examine the records of their respective
States/Courts and report as to whether a proper and fair procedure had
been adopted for evaluating the candidates. A mixed response was
received from different counsel on these issues.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.