Full Bench of the Supreme comprising of Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, and Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed a writ petition filed by eight judicial officers who alleged that the Madras High Court collegium ignored their names and instead recommended their "juniors" for elevation as judges of the High Court by holding that the petitioners' claims were not sustainable. The argument of the Petitioners that it will be discriminatory to allow the benefit of clubbing only to a person who held a judicial office and later became an advocate, did not appeal to the Court. The Judges were of the view that in fact, Article 217(2) does not guarantee any one with the right to be appointed as a judge of the High Court. In a way, a person holding a judicial office is better placed, as he is assured of a career progression (though in a limited sense) after being placed in something like a conveyor belt. There is no such assurance for an advocate. Therefore, the argument of the Petitioners based upon Article 14 did not impress the Judges

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

R.Poornima And Ors Vs. Union Of India And Ors., (2020) 09 SC CK 0008

(Full Bench of the Supreme comprising of Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde, and Justices AS Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian dismissed  a writ petition filed by eight judicial officers who alleged that the Madras High Court collegium ignored their names and instead recommended their "juniors" for elevation as judges of the High Court by holding  that the petitioners' claims were not sustainable. The argument of the Petitioners that it will be discriminatory to allow the benefit of clubbing only to a person who held a judicial office and later became an advocate, did not appeal to the Court. The Judges  were of the view that in fact, Article 217(2) does not guarantee any one with the right to be appointed as a judge of the High Court. In a way, a person holding a judicial office is better placed, as he is assured of a career progression (though in a limited sense) after being placed in something like a conveyor belt. There is no such assurance for an advocate. Therefore, the argument of the Petitioners based upon Article 14 did not impress the Judges)