The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a challenge against the 2010 recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Punjab and Haryana, emphasizing the significant time lapse of 15 years.
A Bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar dismissed the petition, stating:
Read also: Supreme Court Declares Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungles as Protected Forests, Mandates Strict
"Now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back by appointing judicial officers after 15 years or grant consequential reliefs at this point of time."
The issue centered around the interpretation of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Haryana Amendment Rules, 2010, in the context of that year’s recruitment process.
The Court based its decision on two key considerations:
1. Precedent Set in Dr. Kavita Kamboj Case
The first reason for dismissal was the relevance of a prior Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors.. In that case, the Court upheld the High Court’s criteria for promoting judicial officers to District Judges, which required a minimum of 50% marks in interviews under the merit-cum-seniority rule.
Read also: Supreme Court Criticizes Indian Navy Over Denial of Permanent Commission to Woman JAG Officer
"The ratio of the said judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case, and the issue is somewhat similar,"
noted the bench, emphasizing that the legal principle applied earlier directly influenced the present decision.
2. Passage of Time
The second factor was the prolonged delay. The Court made it clear that revisiting judicial appointments from 2010 in 2025 would not be appropriate or feasible.
"The other reason to decline interference is that in the present case, selection is of the year 2010 for the post of civil judge, however, now in the year 2025, the clock cannot be turned back..."
The Court concluded that given both the binding precedent and the unreasonable delay, there was no scope to intervene. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Read also: "In Personal Liberty Cases, High Courts Must Act Swiftly": Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27
Advocate-on-Record Aniteja Sharma represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Arun Bhardwaj appeared for the respondents.
Case Details: MUKESH KUMAR & ANR. v/s STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS| CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5482 OF 2024
