Can Retired Judicial Officers be Appointed as HC Judges? Supreme Court to Decide Soon

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Monday, said it will soon pronounce its verdict on whether a retired judicial officer can be appointed as a judge in a high court.

A bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan reserved its judgment on a PIL, which has questioned the appointment of two Additional Judges in the Rajasthan High Court for a short-term after they had retired from service.

"We will decide whether a retired judicial officer can be appointed as a judge in the high court or not. We will decide this point of law," said the bench, wrapping up the hearing of the petition filed by advocate Sunil Samdaria.

The Central government, through Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh, maintained that even a retired judicial officer can be considered by the Collegium for appointment as a judge and there is no bar. He said the only requirement is that the person concerned should be a judicial officer and within the age limit of 58 and 1/2 on the date, the vacancy arises.

But Samdaria cited a Constitution Bench judgment as well as the pertinent constitutional provision regarding the appointment of an HC judge to contend that the person under consideration must be a serving officer.

Samdaria also pointed out that if such a logic was not followed, a judge can be appointed in a high court even for a day after his retirement from subordinate judiciary.

He also relied upon a Constitution Bench ruling to emphasise that it was incumbent upon a high court to make recommendations for the vacancy six months in advance whereas in the present case, the Rajasthan HC sent the proposal on July 2016 for vacancies occurring in October 2014.

The Court said it will consider all his submissions and deliver a ruling soon.

The appointments of the two judges have been justified by the Central government in the Court.

According to the government's logic Additional Judges, who are usually appointed for a period not less than two years, can hold office even for a day.

In its affidavit, the Department of Justice has argued that since the appointment of an Additional Judge is for a maximum of two years in one go, the appointment can be done for any period less than this.

The government's affidavit has been submitted to explain the appointment of Justice Virendra Kumar Mathur and Justice Ram Chandra Singh Jhala as Additional Judges in the Rajasthan High Court for less than two years.

While Justice Mathur has been appointed for a short period of 1 year 3 months, Justice Jhala will hold office for 1 year 1 month 17 days before they retire.

Samdaria’s PIL questioned the duo's appointment, contending why these two had to be picked up when they could not even complete one full term as Additional Judges.

Samdaria has also pointed out that the HC was overburdened with case pending for over 10 years and hence, even according to a Constitution Bench ruling of the apex court, such a short-term appointment was improper and had to be quashed.

The petition pointed out that when the government notified the appointment of the two judges last year, they were not even in service and had retired as judicial officers.

Raising questions on the expediency to appoint these two as Additional Judges even after their retirement from subordinate courts, Samdaria said they were neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed because they had seized to hold 'judicial office' when the notification came.

If the apex court does not intervene, Justice Jhala is to retire on July 2, this year while Justice Mathur will demit office on September 1 after they turn 62.