Case: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India &amp; Another

W.P.(C)No.295 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No.624 of 20161. The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed in W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2016.2. Heard Mr.Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India in W.P.(C) No.295 of 2010. We have also heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person in W.P. (C)No. 624 of 2016.3. The issue of increasing the number of vacancies, at the High Court level, has been examined at the level of the Government, and an increase in the number of posts was ordered recently. Insofar as the subordinate courts, upto the district level are concerned, this Court has recently rendered a judgment in connection with the manner of increasing the posts at the said subordinate level (Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2017 (1) Scale 164 ).4. It is not in dispute, that a large number of unfilled posts of Judges, at various levels, are pending, and a rigorous process for filling them is in progress. The question of increasing the number of posts, as has been suggested in these petitions, will arise only after the existing vacancies have been filled up, and the proposals made by this Court are adopted, which we are of the view, should be the first step in the process of increasing the vacancies and filling them.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]W.P.(C)No.295 of 2016 andW.P.(C) No.624 ofIt is not in dispute, that a large number of unfilled posts of Judges, at various levels, are pending, and a rigorous process for filling them is in progress. The question of increasing the number of posts, as has been suggested in these petitions, will arise only after the existing vacancies have been filled up, and the proposals made by this Court are adopted, which we are of the view, should be the first step in the process of increasing the vacancies and filling9. Insofar as prayer `(a) is concerned, the same has been dealt with by us while disposing ofW.P. (C)No.624 of 2016, decided on 20.03.2017 (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr.). As such, prayer `(a) is disposed of, in terms of the order referred to hereinabove.10. So far as prayer (b) is concerned, a Committee of Honble Judges of the Supreme Court has been constituted, to look into the matter.