New Delhi: In a resounding victory for judicial independence and employee rights, the Supreme Court has set aside the Uttarakhand High Court's refusal to relieve two judicial officers who had been selected for the prestigious Delhi Judicial Service (DJS). The Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, held that a state cannot deny permission to an officer to migrate to another service merely citing a "shortage of judges."
The Court directed the Uttarakhand High Court to issue orders for the cessation of their services immediately, enabling them to join their new posts in Delhi before the deadline of February 13, 2026.
The petitioners, Anubhuti Goel and another judicial officer, were serving as Civil Judges in Uttarakhand. Aspiring for better career prospects, they applied for and cleared the rigorous Delhi Judicial Service Examination. However, when they sought permission to attend the viva-voce and subsequently resign to join DJS, the Uttarakhand High Court played hardball.
The High Court administration argued that permitting officers to migrate to other states would "weaken the strength of the State's judicial service" and adversely impact the litigant public due to resulting vacancies. Essentially, the HC prioritized its administrative convenience over the individual aspirations of the judges.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's "vacancy defense" outright. The Bench observed that while public interest is important, it cannot override the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) (Right to practice any profession) and their legitimate expectation of career advancement.
Justice Nagarathna, writing for the Bench, noted that forcing unhappy officers to stay would be counterproductive:
"Any denial of the prayers of the petitioners herein may result in negativity, frustration and also in violation of the fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution of India... The vacancies which would ensue could always be filled by the recruitment which could be made at the earliest.
This judgment is a critical precedent for the subordinate judiciary across India. Judicial officers often face bureaucratic hurdles when trying to switch cadres or states. By framing this as a question of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has made it clear that judges are not "bonded laborers" of the state. If they qualify for a better position through open competition, the administration is duty-bound to facilitate, not obstruct, their exit.