Premium
This is an archive article published on April 26, 2011

CJ refuses to hear case against appointment of judge on varsity tribunal

In a petition filed by lawyer VP Patil challenging the appointment of Justice ND Deshpande,who is believed not to be confirmed as a judge of the High Court,to preside over the University and College Tribunal,Chief Justice Mohit Shah on Monday referred the case to another bench observing that his recommendations have been challenged in the petition.

In a petition filed by lawyer VP Patil challenging the appointment of Justice ND Deshpande,who is believed not to be confirmed as a judge of the High Court,to preside over the University and College Tribunal,Chief Justice Mohit Shah on Monday referred the case to another bench observing that his recommendations have been challenged in the petition.

Patil,in the petition filed on April 15,had contended that since Deshpande was not confirmed as an HC judge,his appointment on the tribunal was illegal. Patil,in his petition,has named the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court as one of the respondents in the case along with Deshpande.

“This practice (of making the Chief Justice party to the litigation) is not be encouraged,” said Chief Jutsice Mohit Shah. “It’s like you are challenging my recommendation. We can’t hear it.” Patil told the court that he would carry out the necessary amendments to the petition and urged the court to constitute a special bench to hear the case.

Story continues below this ad

Deshpande was appointed as an additional judge of the High Court on April 16,2008,and after two years was appointed as an additional judge again. Two additional judges,who are juniors to Deshpande,were sworn in as confirmed judges of the High Court on Friday. This,Patil has stated in his petition,“clearly shows that respondent no 1 (Deshpande) was not made permanent as he is unsuitable to hold judicial office.”

Urging the court to call for the service file of Deshpande and the file showing records of reasons for not confirming him as an HC judge,Patil stated,“If the service record of the respondent no 1 would have been good,he would have been made permanent.”

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement