THR. REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANR. (W.P.(C) 759/2017)

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it tofindcaseseasily@gmail.com— our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

If you find any discrepancy in any case record, please report it to findcaseseasily@gmail.com — our support team will be glad to review and fix it.

FindCasesEasilyFindCasesEasily.comAI-Powered Case Law & Court Intelligence

Supreme Court of India

Unified case view

0 cases

Sort

Reading · W.P.(C) 759/2017

Case Record

W.P.(C) 759/2017

THR. REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ANR.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI · HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

W.P.(C)Writs Service matters Writ petitions Civil

68 PDF renditions· 68 distinct judicial orders· 27 verified locally

Save

8Important Paragraphs
6Legal Principles
12Authorities
47Similar Cases

Case record

Research

What Happened

REJANISH K.V Versus K. DEEPA & ORS.. W.P.(C) 759/2017 in the Supreme Court of India, CNR SCIN010235582017. Status on the court record: DISPOSED. This page is written from 27 order document(s) downloaded for this case, dated 22 September 2017 to 11 March 2026.

On 22 September 2017 the order records: Issue notice. The petitioner is permitted to appear in the ensuing examination subject to the result of the writ petition.
On 8 February 2018 the order records: In all matters the respondent No.1 has failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Ld.counsel seeks further time. However, in the interest of justice four weeks time as last and final opportunity is given to file the same.
On 20 July 2022 the order records: Service of notice of alternative arrangement is complete on the sole petitioner, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has instructions to withdraw the present petition and he will be moving appropriate application in this regard. In case the applicatio
On 2 September 2022 the order records: Service of notice of alternative arrangement is complete on the sole petitioner, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. However on 20.7.2022, Ms. Tina Garg, Ld. AOR and sought time to file vakalatnama and IA to withdraw the case. But neither such IA nor vakalatnama has been filed till date. However, today aga
On 12 August 2025 the order records: Leave granted. The operative part of the reportable judgment is reproduced as under:
On 9 October 2025 the order records: 1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh pronounced his separate but concurring judgment. 2. In
On 13 November 2025 the order records: 1. When the matter was listed previously Ms Suhasini Sen, learned counsel was present in the Court. This Court, therefore, requested Ms. Sen to assist the Court by making a list of various matters and applications listed in this batch and further to categorize them as per the status of the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) th
On 11 March 2026 the order records: 1. Application for listing review petition in open Court is allowed. 2. Delay condoned.

Issues Before Court

However, we do not find it necessary to refer to them inasmuch as, at this stage, we are only concerned with the question as to whether the issue involving interpretation of Article 233(2) requires to be referred to a Constitution Bench of this Court or not?
D i n light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the interpretation of the provision , we are of the considered view that the following two issues are substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?
A three -Judge Bench of this Court in th is batch of matters, vide order dated 12th August 2025, had referred the following substantial questions of law for consideration of a Constitution Bench: (i) Whether a judicial officer who has already completed seven years in Bar being recruited for subordinate judicial services would be entitled for appointment as Additional District Judge against the Bar vacancy?
When this batch of matters was listed for directions on 12th September 2025, the following additional questions were also framed by the Constitution Bench: (iii) Whether there is any eligibility prescribed for a person already in the judicial service of the Union or State under Article 233(2) of the 6 Constitution of India for being appointed as District Judge?

Procedural History

22 September 2017. Issue notice. The petitioner is permitted to appear in the ensuing examination subject to the result of the writ petition.
6 November 2017. Issue notice. Tag with WP(C) No. 759/2017.
10 November 2017. Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed. Four weeks' time is granted to respondent No.1 for filing counter affidavit.
13 November 2017. Issue notice. The petitioner is permitted to appear in the ensuing examination subject to the result of the instant writ petition.
15 December 2017. Last and final opportunity is granted to respondent No.1 for filing counter affidavit within four weeks. Respondent No.2 has been served but no one has entered appearance.
8 February 2018. In all matters the respondent No.1 has failed to file the counter affidavit within the period stipulated under the rules. Ld.counsel seeks further time. However, in the interest of justice four weeks time as last and final opportunity is given to file the same.
25 October 2019. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. List along with Writ Petition (C)No.759 of 2017.
25 January 2021. List on 08.02.2021.
8 February 2021. In view of letter circulated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.P.(Civil)No.759 of 2017 seeking adjournment, these petitions are adjourned for two weeks.
20 July 2022. Service of notice of alternative arrangement is complete on the sole petitioner, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. However, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has instructions to withdraw the present petition and he will be moving appropriate application in this regard. In case the applicatio
2 September 2022. Service of notice of alternative arrangement is complete on the sole petitioner, but no one has entered appearance on his behalf. However on 20.7.2022, Ms. Tina Garg, Ld. AOR and sought time to file vakalatnama and IA to withdraw the case. But neither such IA nor vakalatnama has been filed till date. However, today aga
9 November 2022. Application for withdrawal of the Writ Petition is allowed. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
17 September 2024. List these matters on 26th November, 2024.
3 December 2024. Writ Petition (C) No.1069/2017 1. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous in terms of the signed order. 2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
19 December 2024. Let this writ petition be tagged with Civil Appeal No.3947/2020 and Review Petition (C) No.621/2021 in Civil Appeal No.1698/2020, after obtaining orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
28 July 2025. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Arguments heard.
12 August 2025. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
12 August 2025. Leave granted. The operative part of the reportable judgment is reproduced as under:
12 September 2025. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
23 September 2025. 1. Arguments heard, which remained inconclusive. 2. For further hearing list on 24.09.2025 as part heard.
24 September 2025. 1. Heard-in-part. 2. For further arguments, list these matters tomorrow, i.e.
25 September 2025. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. Hearing concluded.
9 October 2025. Order on the record. The operative text could not be read.
9 October 2025. 1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Chief Justice of India pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh pronounced his separate but concurring judgment. 2. In
6 November 2025. List on 13.11.2025.
13 November 2025. 1. When the matter was listed previously Ms Suhasini Sen, learned counsel was present in the Court. This Court, therefore, requested Ms. Sen to assist the Court by making a list of various matters and applications listed in this batch and further to categorize them as per the status of the Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s) th
11 March 2026. 1. Application for listing review petition in open Court is allowed. 2. Delay condoned.
Counsel named on these orders, not a complete vakalatnama, include the advocates listed below.

Advocates — Appellants: Mr. Mohan K. Ghosh, Ms. Tina Garg, Mr. Rohit Dutta, Mr. B. Ramana Murthy, Mr. M.K. Ghosh, Mr. Abhilash M.R., Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Mr. Akshat Goel, Mr. Rajiv Bhalla, Mr. M.K.Ghosh, Mr. Yajur Bhalla Advocates — Respondents: Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Mr. Karan Bharihoke, Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Mr. Rajiv Bhalla, Mr. M.K.Ghosh, Ms. Tina Garg, Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Mr. V. Elanchezhiyan, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Ms. Japneet Kaur

Relief Sought & Granted

On 11 March 2026 the order records: Application for listing review petition in open Court is allowed.

Subjects

Writs Service matters Writ petitions Civil

Current position

DISPOSED · Latest recorded event 11 Mar 2026

Latest development

Latest recorded event 11 Mar 2026

Final disposition

Application for listing review petition in open Court is allowed.

Important procedural note

Written only from 27 Supreme Court order file(s) for this case. No headnote or citation was added. 40 other files in the folder were left out.