The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the administrative interest of a High Court in managing vacancies cannot override the fundamental rights of judicial officers to pursue their profession and settle in another state. The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed a writ petition filed by two serving Civil Judges from Uttarakhand, permitting them to resign from their current posts to join the Delhi Judicial Service.
The Apex Court held that denying permission to migrate would result in “negativity, frustration and also in violation of the fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution of India.”
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Anubhuti Goel and another, are currently serving as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the State of Uttarakhand. They were appointed to the Uttarakhand Judicial Services following a recruitment process that began in March 2023. They were officially appointed and posted on July 11, 2024.
Simultaneously, the petitioners had applied for the Delhi Judicial Service Examination-2023, advertised by the High Court of Delhi on November 6, 2023. While serving in Uttarakhand, the results of the Delhi Judicial Service Mains Examination were announced on January 7, 2025, declaring the petitioners successful and shortlisted for the viva-voce.
On February 5, 2025, the petitioners sought prior approval from the High Court of Uttarakhand to appear for the Delhi viva-voce. However, the High Court of Uttarakhand, through a letter dated 19.02.2025, rejected their applications. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: Learned senior counsel Mr. Siddhartha Dave submitted that the petitioners had successfully cleared the Delhi Judicial Service Examination (appearing for the viva-voce pursuant to an interim order of the Supreme Court dated 25.02.2025) and were now declared meritorious.
He argued that the petitioners intend to join the Delhi Judicial Service and sought permission for the cessation of their service in Uttarakhand. Mr. Dave contended that:
- Innumerable vacancies arise every year and are filled by recruitment.
- The petitioners’ rights cannot be “frustrated only because the said vacancies would ensue.”
- Articles 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantee the fundamental rights of movement, residence, settlement, and profession.
For the High Court of Uttarakhand (Respondent No. 1): Learned counsel for the High Court opposed the petition, highlighting the administrative difficulties. The counsel submitted that:
- Vacancies resulting from such migration lead to the pendency of cases in courts presided over by the officers.
- Allowing this would create a “pattern,” causing a “dent in the strength of the judicial service of the Uttarakhand State,” which would consequently affect the “litigant public.”
For the High Court of Delhi (Respondent No. 3): Learned counsel submitted that the High Court would abide by the Supreme Court’s directions. However, it was emphasized that the petitioners must join service on or before 13.02.2026 to maintain their seniority as per the merit list, noting that other officers had already joined in August 2025.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the matter required balancing the interests of the petitioners, who wished to migrate for personal reasons and career progression, against the interest of the Uttarakhand Judicial Service in maintaining its cadre strength.
In its analysis, the Court acknowledged the difficulty cited by the Uttarakhand High Court regarding vacancies but firmly held that the petitioners’ interests must prevail.
The Bench observed:
“We find that in the present case, the interest of the petitioners would have an overriding effect as compared to the interest of the respondent-Uttarakhand Judicial Service and the interest of the first respondent-High Court.”
Addressing the issue of vacancies, the Court stated:
“The vacancies which would ensue could always be filled by the recruitment which could be made at the earliest. But any denial of the prayers of the petitioners herein may result in negativity, frustration and also in violation of the fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution of India.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Court issued the following directions:
- The High Court of Uttarakhand (Respondent No. 1) is directed to take steps to pass an order regarding the cessation of the petitioners’ service in the State of Uttarakhand.
- This must be done to enable them to join the Delhi Judicial Service well before 13.02.2026.
- The Court clarified that the merit of the petitioners in the Delhi Judicial Service shall be in accordance with their position in the Select List, and the delay in joining “shall not affect their seniority in the merit list.”
The Writ Petition No. 172 of 2025 was disposed of in these terms.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Anubhuti Goel & Anr. vs. The High Court of Uttarakhand & Ors.
- Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 172 of 2025
- Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR
- Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR (Uttarakhand HC), Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR
