Supreme Court Yearly Digest 2022- Judiciary

Judges Appointment Judges Appointment - Collegium reiterations are binding - Supreme Court asks Centre to explain by reiterated names are sent back to the collegium- 10 names reiterated by the Supreme Court collegium sent back by the Central Government- SC asks Attorney General as to how under the Scheme of law prevalent, are reiterated names sent back - Refers to para 486, clause 5 of the second Judges case reported in 1993 SCC 441 - sending back a second time reiterated names would be in breach of this direction. Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra, 2022 LiveLaw 949 Judicial Appointments - Supreme Court makes critical remarks against the Union Government over delay in clearing names reiterated by the Collegium. Abhay Jain v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw 284 : 2022 SCALE 784 Judicial Service - Appellant had applied to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge - In the meantime, he also applied for post of Civil Judge in State of Uttar Pradesh - After being successful in the selection process, he was appointed on 16th January 2017 as a Civil Judge in UP - After this, the selection process for recruitment in the Bihar Superior Judicial Services proceeded further. Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw 720 : AIR 2022 SC 4060 Judicial Service Examination - Punjab/Haryana Superior Judicial Service Examination, 2019 - High Court dismissed writ petition challenging the examination process - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed : Valuate the marks obtained of question nos. Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2022 LiveLaw 720 : AIR 2022 SC 4060 Judicial Service Examination - Where the written examination is followed with viva­voce, declaration of result of the written examination before conducting viva­voce may not be valid and justified but in cases where determination of merit is based on written examination, it must be declared and made available to candidates without any loss of time and this Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that in such cases where the written examination is followed with interview / viva­voce and the members in the interview board are made aware of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination that may likely to form bias affecting the impartial evaluation of the candidates in viva­voce and in our considered view, it may always be avoided.