Due to significant delay in formulating new Recruitment Rules for Judicial Officers following the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, numerous positions for Civil Judges remain vacant, while the promotion of several Junior Judges has been put on hold. Since the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, neither the Government of Jammu and Kashmir nor the High Court has conducted any new recruitment of Munsiffs (Civil Judges in the Junior Division). Although the cadre of Judicial Officers is common for the common High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the two Union Territories have different rules regarding the appointment of Gazetted officers, the Jammu Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) is responsible for UT of J&K, while the Central UPSC is responsible for the UT of Ladakh.
The delay in framing new Recruitment Rules for Judicial Officers in Jammu and Kashmir has had significant repercussions on the judicial services in the region. Many posts for Civil Judges at both the Junior and Senior divisions are currently vacant. This shortage of Judicial Officers directly affects the functioning of the justice system, as these judges are responsible for adjudicating cases and ensuring timely justice delivery. The District Judiciary plays a vital role in the justice system as it is the first point of contact for justice seekers. With numerous vacancies in the Civil Judges’ positions, the District Judiciary is unable to function optimally, resulting in delays and backlogs in case hearings. To compensate for the vacancies, courts are forced to operate temporarily, with Magistrates and Civil Judges functioning on a time-gap charge basis. This arrangement is not ideal, as it disrupts the continuity required for effective case handling.
The absence of fresh recruitment for the past five years has affected the overall efficiency of the judicial services in Jammu and Kashmir. The delay in promotions and the resulting stagnation of Junior Judges adversely impact their career progression. The prolonged delay in promotions has led to stagnation in their positions and may cause frustration and demotivation among these officers. When officers are denied their rightful promotions, it somehow affects their dedication, commitment, and overall job satisfaction. This can have a negative impact on their performance and the quality of judicial services. Promotion is not just a matter of financial benefits; but also plays a vital role in the professional and personal growth of judicial officers. It provides them with new challenges, opportunities, and increased responsibilities. By neglecting promotions, the authorities are hindering the career development of deserving officers.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of timely promotions to enhance the calibre and capacity of judges. Ignoring the right to promotion not only goes against these observations but also creates a sense of injustice and inequality among the affected officers, along with monetary loss. Moreover, delayed promotions disrupt succession planning within the judiciary. Senior officers nearing retirement need to be replaced by qualified and experienced individuals.
The continuous denial of opportunities for the youth who have been diligently preparing for civil judge positions is an alarming issue. Despite their years of preparation, these aspiring individuals are consistently denied the chance to appear in examinations and secure a position. Moreover, the delay of five years in conducting any recruitment exacerbates the problem, as many of these candidates are now overage. Such a situation is highly unacceptable, particularly considering the prevailing concerns surrounding unemployment.
The recruitment of junior judicial posts falls within the purview of the state/UT, making it the sole responsibility of the concerned authorities. Neither the Central Government nor the High Court can directly interfere in the recruitment process. Regardless of the reasons causing the delay in establishing the rules, a four-year timeframe is significant enough to rectify the situation. Given the critical nature of the matter, it demands immediate resolution and attention.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
