Tosh Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 2025 INSC 921 - Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules - Art. 235 Constitution

Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - Rule 8(2) - Rule 8(2) of the Rules does not apply to the situation confronting the High Court upon the rejection of one candidature by the Hon’ble Governor/State Government from out of the communicated list- it accounts for a situation wherein, for instance, a Merit List contains eleven candidates, but the recruitment process culminates in recommending ten candidates for notification. If the top ten candidates are approved by the Hon’ble Governor/State Government, the person placed at the eleventh position is out of the game. However, if, for any reason, one or more of the top ten candidates do not get approved for appointment, the eleventh-ranked candidate from the same selection process is entitled to be offered an appointment. This logically flows from reading and construing ‘selected direct recruits available for appointment’ as a whole. (Para 21)

Constitution of India - Article 235 - Article 235 of the Constitution bestows complete, exclusive and effective control over Judicial Officers, encompassing appointment, removal, reduction of rank, dismissal, transfer, promotion etc. on the concerned High Court- a Committee of Judges can be authorised by the Full Court/Chief Justice or the concerned High Court Rules to decide on matters, and such delegation to the Committee was permissible in law. (Para 15-16)

Service Law - Ordinarily, the number of appointments made cannot exceed the vacancies advertised/notified, as well as the understanding that a selection process may reasonably contemplate both actual and anticipated vacancies, but not future vacancies. (Para 26)