NEW DELHI: Insulating the choice and appointment of judicial officers from any interference by Union govt, Supreme Court on Monday dominated that states can not seek the advice of Centre on this challenge and should resolve their variations by way of dialogue with HCs.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated, “We are in agreement with (Punjab and Haryana) HC that Haryana govt travelled beyond the remit of the consultation with HC by referring the matter to the Union govt.”

Writing the judgment, CJI stated, “Any issue between HC and state govt should have been ironed out in the course of the consultative process within the two entities. The state govt was bound to consult only HC.”

Expressing doubts over legality of the change of choice guidelines for district judges effected by Punjab and Haryana HC to supply separate cut-off marks for written and interview, Haryana had sought an opinion from Union govt, which had stated that HC’s full court docket decision effecting the modifications weren’t binding on the state because it lacked component of session with state.

Resolving the controversy with a ruling that might bind all state govts, the bench accepted the arguments of senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, who appeared for HC, and stated, “In matters of appointment of judicial officers, HC is in the best position to know about the suitability of candidates to the post of district judge.”

The CJI-led bench stated that the place there are guidelines framed for choice and promotion of judicial officers, HCs can not change or modify it by way of a full court docket decision. However, they will achieve this when the foundations are usually not there or are silent on this facet, it stated. Referring to separate minimal cut-off marks for interview and viva voce prescribed by HC, SC stated, “A candidate should demonstrate both practical knowledge and application of the substantive law in the course of the interview.”