Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Officers' Right to Migrate, Emphasizes Fundamental Rights Over Administrative Concerns Apex Court Allows Uttarakhand Judicial Officers to Join Delhi Judicial Service, Citing Fundamental Rights of Movement and Profession
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of two judicial officers seeking to migrate from the Uttarakhand Judicial Service to the Delhi Judicial Service. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, underscores the primacy of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India over administrative concerns related to vacancy management within state judicial services.
The petitioners, Anubhuti Goel and another judicial officer, had successfully cleared the Delhi Judicial Service Examination-2023 while serving as Civil Judges in Uttarakhand. However, their application to appear for the viva-voce of the Delhi examination was rejected by the High Court of Uttarakhand on the grounds of impending vacancies that their migration might cause in the state judicial cadre.
The Supreme Court, while allowing the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, recognized the petitioners' fundamental rights to movement, residence, and profession. It ruled that these rights cannot be curtailed merely due to administrative concerns over vacancies. The Court emphasized that vacancies in the Uttarakhand Judicial Service could be addressed through timely recruitment processes, and denying the petitioners' request would not only violate their fundamental rights but also lead to frustration and negativity.
The Court directed the High Court of Uttarakhand to facilitate the cessation of the petitioners' service in the state and enable their timely joining of the Delhi Judicial Service, without affecting their seniority based on merit in the select list. The judgment reinforces the constitutional guarantees of movement and professional choices for individuals, asserting that administrative hurdles should not impede these rights.
The decision has been welcomed by the petitioners as a validation of their rights and aspirations to serve in a different judicial capacity. The Supreme Court's order is expected to set a precedent for similar cases where judicial officers seek inter-state transfers for personal and professional reasons.
Bottom Line:
Judicial Officers - Seeking permission to migrate from one State Judicial Service to another - Fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution prevail over administrative concerns of vacancy arising in the judicial cadre of the parent State.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India
Anubhuti Goel v. High Court of Uttarakhand, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841204
