G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of L.P. As. Nos. 1149 of 1988 and 1161 of 1988, as common questions of law and facts arise in these appeals.
(2.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single judge whereby he had upheld the selection of Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 as Additional District and Sessions Judges in the State of Haryana. Reference to the facts and documents, unless otherwise specified, shall be made from L.P.A. No. 1161 of 1988. Facts first: By notification dated December 4, 1985, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court decided that applications be invited for selection of six candidates for direct recruitment from the Bar to fill six temporary posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges in the State of Haryana. These appointments were to be made keeping in view the provisions of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules) as applicable to the State of Haryana. In the notification the conditions of eligibity for applying for these posts are specified. The applicants were also required to file Income -tax Returns showing the gross professional income and Income -tax paid on the professional income during the last three Financial Years separately, i.e., for the Accounting Years 1982 -83, 1983 -84 and 1984 -85. income from other sources not connected with the profession was not to be included. A copy of this notification was endorsed to the President, High Court Bar Association and another copy to all the District and Sessions Judges in the State of Haryana with the request that the applications be invited from the Advocates/Pleaders peactising in the Sessions Division, who were eligible, and the same be forwarded to this Court with their recommendation along with a statement showing the particulars referred to in the notification so as to reach this Court by or before January 13, 1986. Pursuant thereto, 71 applications were received. The Registrar prepared a Meeting Note in which he pointed out the applications which were received by the due date, those which were incomplete and those which did not fulfil the requisite conditions and also pointed out that Surinder Mohan Sharma Appellant in L.P.A. No. 1161 of 1988 did not send his application through the District and Sessions Judge and instead sent it direct to the Registrar with a request that on his application recommendation from the District and Sessions Judge be called for. All the applications along with the Meeting Note were placed in Full Court Meeting held on January 24, 1986. The meeting resolved that candidates mentioned in the list Annexure 'A' appended to the confidential proceedings of the meeting be called for interview for February 8, 1986. Only candidates were called for interview. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 and Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal were selected as Additional District and Sessions Judges and the Registrar vide letter dated February 10, 1936, requested, the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana to notify the appointment of the candidates so selected. The Appellant challenged the selection and appointment on the following grounds: (1) This Court wrongly short -listed the candidates to be called for interview and only those candidates were called for interview who returned their income from the legal profession in their Income tax return to the tune of Rs. 54,000/ - and more during the preceding three years. The candidature of these who bad less income was wrongly rejected. The selection is, therefore, violative of the rule of equity enshrined in the Constitution. (11) The Petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1293 of 1987 had rightly addressed his application direct to the Registrar of this Court. The requirement that the applications are to be forwarded by the District and Sessions Judge of the respective districts and where the candidates were practising as Advocates/Pleader did not form part of the notification itself but was contained in the endorsements to the District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana. Therefore, the application addressed to the Registrar direct should have been entertained. Its rejection on the ground that it has not been routed through the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, is ultra vires the notification and, therefore, illegal. Written statement was filed by the Registrar on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.) In the written statement, it was pleaded that in all 71 applications were received and thereafter a preliminary scrutiny of these applications was made in a meeting of the Hon'ble Judges held on January 21, 1986 and January 31, 1986 It was orally decided in the said meeting that only the those eligible Advocates/District Attorneys whose applications were complete in all respects and who had shown their total professional income as Rs. 54,000/ - or above for the Accounting Years 1982 -83, 1083 -84 and 1984 -85 be called fore interview and other candidates who were either not eligible or were not recommended by the District and Sessions Judges or their applications were incomplete for want of requisite documents or received late be not called for interview even if any of them had shown the total professional income as Rs. 54,000/ - or above during the said period of 3 years. The Full Court decided that 25 candidates be called for interview. Surinder Mohan Sharma was not called for interview since his professional income for the years 1982 -83, 1988 -84 and 1984 85 was Rs 49,950/ - as against Rs. 54,000/ -, the minimum professional income determined by the meeting for the purpose. Devinder Kumar Single Appellant in L. R. A. No. 1114 of 1988 was not called for interview since his professional income for the years 198(Sic) -83. 1983 -84 and 1984 -85 was Rs. 51,000/ - as against Rs. 54,000/ - the minimum professional income determined in the Full Court meeting.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches and also on merits. The learned Single Judge held that the Selection Committee was competent to short -list the candidates by adopting a reasonable criterion for the purpose of inviting eligible candidates for interview It rightly decided that those candidates should be called for interview who had shown gross professional income for the last three years as Rs. 54,000/ - or more, On the second ground, the learned Single Judge held that although in the notification published in the Government Gazette, it was not mentioned that the applications of the practising Advocates in the districts shall be forwarded with the recommendation of the respective District and Sessions Judges, but in the endorsements on the notification, which is an integral part, it is specified that in the case of Advocates/Pleaders practising in the Sessions Divisions, their applications were to be forwarded by the respective District and Sessions Judges with their recommendations. The learned Single Judge farther held that in fact the District and Sessions Judges had circulated this notification with this endorsement to the members of the Bar in their respective districts. Thus, the learned Single Judge negatived the pleas of the writ -Petitioners.;