Vacancy that Arose after the Elevation of Judge can never be Anticipated: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a plea filed by a judicial officer in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services seeking promotion to a vacancy that arose after the elevation of a District Judge to the High Court. The vacation bench constituting Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision. The HC observed that “...vacancies that would arise due to elevation or death stood excluded from the vacancies which had to be notified by the High Courts.” While hearing the matter on June 25, the SC bench observed that a vacancy arising out of the elevation of a judge cannot be recognized as an anticipated vacancy. Justice Mishra said, ‘elevation can never be anticipated,’ thus the same would not amount to anticipated vacancy. He elaborated, “The issue here is that the vacancy has arisen on account of the elevation of Rakesh Kainthla. Now, elevation can never be anticipated…it is not an anticipated vacancy.” The order of the SC, while dismissing the plea, reads, “The law related to wait-listed candidates is that if someone from the select list is unable to join then you get the offered appointment against the vacancies for which recruitment has been held. Now, there was no recruitment for this vacancy and there could be none because this is not an anticipated vacancy…”