The Supreme Court in the case In Re: Termination of Civil Judge, Class-II (Jr. Division) Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Service observed wherein the writ plea is registered in connection with simultaneous termination of services of 6 female civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh government.
The Supreme Court in the case observed and has issued the notice to the Registrar General of the MP High Court.
The bench comprising of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Sanjay Karol in the case observed that the suo motu cognizance of the matter had already been taken by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and the same was in the nature of an Article 32 petition of the Constitution of India.
The present case relates to 6 female judges, appointed in Judicial Services of the State of Madhya Pradesh, who were terminated from service last year.
Therefore, aggrieved with the same, three of them had written to the top Court on September 2, 2023, wherein it is alleged that the termination was primarily on account of their disposal not being upto the standards set.
It has been claimed by the officers that their services had been terminated in the initial stage of their career, despite the fact that quantitative assessment of their work could not take place due to considerable lapse of time on account of outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.
The court while taking cognizance of the case directed the appointment of Advocate Gaurav Agarwal as Amicus Curiae in the matter.
The counsel, Advocate Agarwal apprised the court that 3 of the former judges have approached the High Court with their grievance, where the matter is pending but has not been taken up as such.
However, it also came up that some of the aggrieved officers had in fact approached the Supreme Court earlier with writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which were ultimately withdrawn.
The bench headed by Justice Karol in the case observed and has remarked that we are first to decide whether we should even entertain this, of course.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Patwalia appearing for the impleadment applicant urged before the court that once cognizance is taken, notice has to go to the other side.
Further, it has also been informed by the said court that that when the writ petitions were filed, and withdrawn to approach the High Court, the aggrieved officers were not aware that the court had taken suo motu cognizance of the matter.
The counsels, Senior Advocate Patwalia and Advocate Agarwal unanimously asserted that there was no way for the officers to know that.
The bench after hearing the submissions issued notice in the suo motu writ petition. The application for impleadment of one of the 6 officers was allowed, as Advocate Rekha Pandey entered appearance for 3 of the officers, notice was directed to be issued to the 2 remaining officers, besides the Registrar General of the MP High Court.
The counsel, Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the Amicus Curiae;
The counsel, Senior Advocate DS Patwalia (for impleadment applicant); Advocate Dr. Charu Mathur; Advocate Rekha Pandey.
