LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this appeal. THE case was argued before the learned Single Judge as well as before us by the petitioner-appellant in person. An interesting prayer was made in the writ petition in the nature of mandamus. THE prayer in the writ petition reads as follows: i) Respondents be directed to advertise the post of Chief Justice of India, Judges of Supreme Court, Chief Justice of High Courts and Judges of High Court and petitioner be provided an opportunity to apply under such advertisement and compete before any appointment is made and selection be made after considering all candidates who are eligibles and applies for such appointment. ii) It be declared right to opportunity to apply for the post of and appointment of Chief Justice of India, Judge of Supreme Court, Chief Justice of State and High Court is an un- amendable fundamental right in these appointments and every eligible has right to apply and compete for such appointments irrespective of caste, creed or sex. iii) Any other relief this Hon'ble Court deem fit be awarded to the petitioner. "
(2.) THE President of India, Chief Justice of India, Governor of Rajasthan, Chief Justice of Rajasthan and Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice were made party- respondents. According to the petitioner-appellant, in so far as judicial appointments under Articles 124 and 217 are concerned, it is impossible to achieve transparency unless intention of Government is clear and transparent. The petitioner has employed intemperate language in presenting his case and criticised the appointments made for the High Court, Supreme Court and transfers. In Para-4 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated thus: " That fifty years of Satyanmev Jayate (let truth win) have left us saddled with a Supreme Court Judgment which holds that truth is no defence against the charge of contempt to Court. This judgment is State of Maharashtra vs. Perspective Publications. The result is that the public never knows the truth of the Judicial Guerrilla warfare that goes on in the Apex Court for High Court appointments and transfers. The same applies to the Apex Court appointments and especially the fights for the office of the Chief Justice of India. The Legal business lobbies and the ruling politicians who partake of these fights for public office remain conveniently hidden from the public eye. The same judgment comes in handy to screen of public gaze into the functioning of those appointed. In the name of the independence of the Judiciary and the contempt power against scandalizing courts are wholly opaque and not subject to truth about themselves. " In Paras-7 and 8 the petitioner has stated thus: (7) "that so far Judges appointments and transfers are concerned, we have made endeavour to seek transparency in such appointments and made attempts by filing various kind of litigation but in 50 years, we have not reached to a right conclusion and Learned President of India has made reference under Article 143 to seek some solution. But there could be no solution unless, all eligibles are invited to seek these appointments. (8) That every appointment is a NATIONAL PROPERTY and every eligible irrespective of caste creed or sex has right to seek such appointments. It is not a hereditary property that it would be succeeded by the hereditary choice of the appointing authorities. In last 50 years we did only this. All appointments so far made under Article 124 and 217 are in violation of Article 14 and 16. They are against doctrine of Legitimate expectancy. Further they are against basic structure of Constitution that is against principle of "right to opportunity". The world's best Constitution which we are having is based on basis of Human Rights and India is Champion for last 50 years which had ADVOCATED FOR THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. " ONE OF THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHT IS RIGHT TO OPPORTUNITY" WHICH IS AN UNAMENDABLE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. BUT WE ARE DENYInG THIS RIGHT TO ALL ELIGIBLES. What is going inside can be seen in Ex. A filed alongwith stay petition which may also be treated as part of this writ petition. " An Article by "krishan Mahajan" "restoring Judicial Integrity" has been filed and marked as Exhibit A-1 alongwith the stay petition. The petitioner sought for stay of any appointments of the High Court or Supreme Court and any Chief Justice of any High Court or the Supreme Court till the posts and appointments are advertised wherein all eligible shall have right to apply, compete and seek these posts. According to the petitioner, he is eligible to be appointed as High Court and Supreme Court Judge as he fulfils all qualifications laid down in Articles 217 and 124 of the Constitution of India to seek such appointment. It is also alleged that since independence and after commencement of the Constitution, all appointments of the High Court and the Supreme Court Judges including Chief Justices have been made in hide and seek manner and the posts and vacancies were never advertised and consequently, all appointments so far made being ab initio void. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition and failed as it was held that the petitioner-appellant had no such right. In Para- 21 of the petition it is stated as follows: " That the petitioner challenged the validity of judgment and jurisdiction of Judges to lay-down the law which was not in their jurisdiction and the Learned Judges decided these things which they were not required to decide, the learned Judges dismissed the Transferred case holding petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. "
(3.) THE copy of the judgment has been filed and marked as Exhibit-1 and copy of the Transferred Case has also been filed and marked as Exhibit-2. THE Supreme Court by order dated - 31. 3. 94 dismissed the Transferred Case (Civil) No. 6 of 1994. THE order in Ex. 1 reads thus: " IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIa CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTIOn TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 6 OF 1994 Dalpat Raj Bhandari, Advocate. . . . . . . . Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. . . . . . . . . . Respondents ORDEr THE petitioner-in-person, who is an Advocate, is not present though the date was fixed in his presence. THE petitioner's application dated 29. 3. 1994 is rejected. In the petitioner's absence, we have gone through his writ petition. THE constitutional validity of transfer policy was judicially upheld in S. P. Gupta's case (S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India) (1982 (2) SCR 365 ). In the Judges Case-II (1993 (4) SCC 411) it was held that judicial review in the matter of transfer of Judges was not excluded but the area of justiciability was limited. It is clear from that judgment that it was so held with a view to prevent any transferred Judge being exposed to any litigation involving him except when he chose to resort to it himself, in the available limited area of justiciability. THE parameters of the area of justiciability in the sphere of judicial review have been clarified further in K. Ashok Reddy vs. Government of India (J. T. 1994 (1) 401 ). Three Judges Bench in Ashok Reddy's case (supra) said: " We consider it sufficient to observe that the limited area of justiciability in this sphere being clearly declared in the Judges Case - II and also herein while making it clear that no one other than the transferred Judge himself can question the validity of a transfer. . . . . . . " It was also emphasized in the said judgment: " It is time that the men at the apex level of the Indian judiciary are permitted to manage the affairs of the judicial family and look after its welfare and interest instead of permitting repeated instrusions by some in the guise of `public interest' thereby rendering the Judge vulnerable to avoidable controversy involving them. We are constrained to observe that the Allahabad case before us is of that kind. " THE present case is another one of the type of the `allahabad Case' referred to above. In view of the pronouncements aforementioned, this petition is misconceived and has no merits. It is dismissed as such. Sd/- (A. S. ANAND) J. Sd/- (S. P. BHARUCHA) J. New Delhi, In the transferred case No. 6/94, notice was issued by the Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court that the transferred case will be posted for hearing on 29. 03. 1994 and will be taken up by the Court on that day. The petitioner-appellant was informed that in default of his appearance within the time prescribed, the transferred case will be heard and determined in his absence and no further notice in relation thereto shall be given to him. The case was ultimately dismissed on 31. 3. 1994 which according to the petitioner, ex-parte, without going into the substantial question involved in the case. The appellant has in para 24 of the writ petition has stated as under: " The Judgment of majority was not based on healthy practices and manner of majority Judges was dis-approved by the learned Judge. In fact the learned Judge was kept away and majority group was not made in official manner. Thus the Judgment casts doubts and is void only in this court. " The appellant in para 25 has stated that the majority judgment laid down the guidelines which are without jurisdiction, illegal and nullity. The petitioner also in paragraphs 26 to 30 has submitted that the guidelines enunciated were wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and nullity as it is in domain of the Parliament and the privilege of the Parliament has very much been violated by the Supreme Court in enacting the guidelines. The petitioner-appellant has further submitted that his transferred case was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court. The petitioner appellant has also stated that though he has made representations to the respondents, the same have not been relied on merits. ;