w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Renu & Others v/s District & Sessions Judge, TIS Hazari Courts, Delhi & Another

    SLP (C) No. 26090 of 2011

    Decided On, 23 September 2011

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE

    For the Appearing Parties: ---------



Judgment Text

Issue notice. In the meantime, we direct that out of approximately 30 vacancies notified vide advertisement dated 11-7-2011 and for which interviews are stated to have been held, 9 (nine

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

) vacancies shall not be filed up without leave of this Court.

In the past also, there have been complaints that the process of recruitment of the administrative staff in subordinate courts in the country is not transparent and in some States, appointments, are made on ad hoc basis without strictly following the recruitment rules, particularly in the matters of educational qualifications and age relaxation. We have no doubt that in majority of cases, such complaints must be by the unsuccessful candidates, yet we feel that the procedure for recruitment should be transparent so that there is no scope for allegation of arbitrariness in the selection process.

Under the circumstances, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the present case and with the sole object of streamlining such recruitments, we direct the office to issue notice to the Registrars General of all the High Courts requiring them to place before us the rules for recruitment of the entire administrative staff in the subordinate courts. The Registrars General shall also elicit the views of their respective Chief Justice on two main points viz., 1) why the recruitments be not centralized; and (2) why the relevant rules governing service conditions of the entire staff above the level of Class IV be not amended to make these as transferable posts. The requisite information shall be furnished by the Registrars General on an affidavit, which shall be filed within eight weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Insofar as the present case is concerned, we clarify that it will be open to the High Court to deal with the appeal on merits uninfluenced by the pendency of this petition.
O R