ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, a practicing Advocate of Rajasthan High Court, questioning the Notification dated 12.05.2017 appointing respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Additional Judges of Rajasthan High Court. This Court on 03.10.2017 had issued notice to respondent No.1 only. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Union of India respondent No.1.
(2.) We have heard the petitioner, appearing in person and Shri Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent.
(3.) The petitioner appearing in person challenging the appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Additional Judges of Rajasthan High Court makes following two submissions: (1) The appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been made as Additional Judges of the Rajasthan High Court under Article 224 of the Constitution of India. The appointment of respondent No.2 has been made till Ist September, 2018 whereas the appointment of respondent No.3 has been made till 2nd July, 2018, both the appointments having been made for a period of less than two years violates Article 224 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that appointment of Additional Judges should not be made for a period of less than two years, hence the appointments are non est and void. judgment of this Court in S.P.Gupta vs. Union of India and another, 1981 Supp SCC 87. (2) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were members of Judicial Service of the State of Rajasthan who retired from the post of District Judge respectively on 30.09.2016 and 31.07.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. On the day when the notification was issued appointing respondent Nos.2 and 3, i.e., 12.05.2017, both being not holding a Judicial Office they were not eligible for appointment as Additional Judges of the High Court. The eligibility of a person to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court as provided under Article 217(2) (a) is that he should be a member of the Judicial Service of the State. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, having long retired from Judicial Service, do not possess eligibility for appointment as Additional Judges of the High Court hence on this ground also the appointments of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be declared as non est and void. Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shri Kumar Padma Prasad vs. Union of India others, 1992 (2) SCC 428 (paragraphs 25, 35, 41). ;