2002 (3) TMI 922 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court invalidates appointment in Assam Legal Service without consultation

Gauhati High Court & Anr. Versus Kuladhar Phukan & Anr.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent's appointment and regularization in Assam Legal Service without High Court consultation were invalid. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the respondent's appointment and regularization in Assam Legal Service without High Court's consultation.2. Lien status of the respondent in Assam Judicial Service.3. The High Court's authority under Article 235 of the Constitution.4. Appropriate relief considering the respondent's circumstances.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of Appointment and RegularizationThe respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a judicial officer in Assam Judicial Services Grade-III and later applied for a temporary post of Deputy Secretary in Assam Legal Service. His appointment was made under Regulation 3(e) of APSC (Limitation of Function) Regulations, 1951, and was temporary until filled through the APSC. When the post was advertised for regular appointment, the respondent applied, was selected, and his appointment was regularized without the High Court's consultation. The High Court was neither consulted before nor after this regularization, violating the mandatory requirement of consultation under Article 235 of the Constitution.Issue 2: Lien Status in Judicial ServiceThe respondent No.1 claimed his lien in Assam Judicial Service was terminated upon his regularization in Assam Legal Service. The Division Bench of the High Court agreed, stating his lien in judicial service automatically terminated by operation of law with effect from 18.7.1986. However, the Supreme Court found this invalid due to the lack of mandatory consultation with the High Court, thus the lien in judicial service did not terminate.Issue 3: High Court's Authority under Article 235Article 235 vests control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court, including posting, promotion, and grant of leave. The Supreme Court emphasized that any action affecting the service career of a judicial officer requires meaningful and effective consultation with the High Court. The failure to consult the High Court while appointing the respondent No.1 to Assam Legal Service and promoting him from Grade-III to Grade-II rendered the actions invalid.Issue 4: Appropriate ReliefConsidering the respondent No.1's long tenure in Assam Legal Service, nearing retirement, and his son's serious neurological condition requiring treatment in Gauhati, the Supreme Court provided a balanced relief. The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside on questions of law. The State of Assam was directed to decide within six weeks if the respondent could be posted in a different office within Assam Legal Service, excluding the roles of Secretary (Judicial) and Legal Remembrancer. If not feasible, the respondent would be repatriated to the High Court as a member of judicial service with a suitable posting, considering his son's medical needs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent's appointment and regularization in Assam Legal Service without High Court's consultation were invalid. The lien in judicial service remained intact. The State of Assam was given six weeks to decide on the respondent's posting in Assam Legal Service, failing which he would be repatriated to judicial service. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.