BHAGTI PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT THROUGH THE REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An advertisement, inviting applications for one temporary post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the pay scale of Rs. 1580 -60 -1700/75 -2000/100 -2400 plus usual allowances as admissible in Himachal Pradesh from time to time on the cadre of the Himachal Pradesh Higher Judicial Service to be filed by direct recruitment, was issued and published on January 18, 1984. In response to the advertisement 101 applications were received. The High Court on the administrative side decided at its Full Court meeting held on March 27, 1984 that 92 candidates, whose applications were found to be In order, be called for interview. The High Court on the administrative side at its Full Court meeting held on April 11, 1984 reconsidered the earlier decision and resolved that the eligible candidates, whose applications were found to be in order, be asked to State whether they paid income -tax and, if so, since when. Such candidates were also asked to supply particulars as to the assessable total income for the three preceding years and they were informed that the relevant information must reach the High Court within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the intimation failing which It would be presumed that the concerned candidate was not assessed to income -tax. Pursuant to an intimation seat to such candidates consequent upon the aforesaid decision, 29 candidates replied that they paid income -tax. Out of the remaining 63 candidates, 16 replied informing that they were not assessed to income -tax and the remaining sent no reply. In light of the above position, the High Court on the administrative side at its Full Court meeting held on May 14, 1984 resolved that all those candidates who had stated that their professional income attracted income -tax be called for interview on May 26, 1984. Such candidates were accordingly interviewed on May 26/28, 1984 and on that occasion it was verified that the statement with regard to their professional income attracting income -tax made in their communication was correct.

(2.) The petitioner was one of the applicants for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. His application having been found in order, he was intimated on April 16/18, 1984 to inform the Registry whether he paid income -tax and if so, since when. The petitioner was also requested to furnish particulars of the total assessable income for the last three years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not been assessed to income -tax during the three preceding years and that he, therefore, did not send his reply to the above mentioned communication. As a natural consequence, the petitioner was excluded from the interview test held on May 26/28, 1984. The petitioner challenges in the present petition the decision of the High Court on its administrative side laying down a zone of selection or field of choice confined to candidates whose professional income attracted income -tax on the ground that the screening test accordingly prescribed is unconstitutional.

(3.) Be it clarified that though the decision of the High Court on the administrative side has been challenged in the petition on diverse grounds, the challenge was confined at the hearing of the petition to one ground only, namely, that the formula or criterion adopted for the purpose of prescribing the zone of selection or field of choice is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.