The case — promotion of judges in lower judiciary — relates to a Punjab and Haryana HC order that the court itself has challenged.
New Delhi: Two vacation benches of the Supreme Court had divergent takes on a plea seeking an urgent hearing on a matter regarding the promotion of judicial officers in Punjab: While one rejected it, the other set a date and listed it for final disposal.
The case stems from an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 3 March 2017 that the court itself, on the administrative side, has challenged before the Supreme Court. The dispute is about promotion of judges in the subordinate judiciary where several judges were affected by the HC order quashing the seniority list of Punjab Superior Judicial Service (PSJS) officers.
The challenge to the order rests on the argument that it contravenes established rules framed a decade ago.
‘No adjournment will be sought’
In the last week of May, advocate Ashok Mathur appeared before a vacation bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, requesting a stay on the high court judgment. He said the high court order had stalled promotions, leaving five districts in Punjab without regular district and sessions judges.
However, the bench declined to take up the matter, saying service matters weren’t urgent enough to be listed during the vacation.
A week later, when the bench changed — now headed by Justice Adarsh Goel — another lawyer, TVS Raghavendra Sreyas, came to court with a similar prayer. This time the matter was listed for final disposal on 3 July. The date assumes importance since Justice Goel retires on 6 July.
“Since it is stated on behalf of the high court that five districts are without any district judge on account of order of status quo passed by this court… we took up the matter in vacation,” Justice Goel said as it set the date on 7 June.
“It is agreed by all learned counsel that on the next date no adjournment will be sought,” the bench said.
The last time the matter was heard was on 21 November last year, when a bench headed by Justice Jasti Chelameswar had ordered that the matter be listed for regular hearing. The Supreme Court ordered status quo on the high court judgment when the matter reached the top court.