Supreme Court - Daily Orders
All India Judges Association vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2022
Bench: B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna
1
ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.12 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1022/1989
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
([ONLY I.A. Nos. 89524 of 2020, 121642 of 2018, 162247-48 of 2018,
162199 and 162201 of 2018, 73015 of 2021, 72900 of 2021, 40695 of
2021, 50269 of 2021, 88342 of 2022 and 88344of 2022 ALONG WITH IA
No. 129336 of 2022 ARE LISTED.], IA No. 50269/2022 - APPLICATION
FOR PERMISSION, IA No. 89524/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS,
IA No. 162201/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 121642/2018 -
CLARIFICATION/ DIRECTION, IA No. 72900/2021- CLARIFICATION/
DIRECTION, IA No. 162248/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No.
88344/2022 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 162199/2018 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION, IA No. 162247/2018 - INTERVENTION
APPLICATION, IA No. 88342/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No.
40695/2021 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 73015/2021 -
MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER AND IA No. 129336/2022 - MODIFICATION
OF COURT ORDER)
Date : 26-09-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
For Parties:
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR
Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Sidfira, Adv.
Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv.
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.10.10
17:22:01 IST
Mr. Rajeev Jha, Adv.
Reason:
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Pandey, Adv.
2
Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Karan Mamgain, Adv.
Ms. Baani Khanna, Adv.
Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv.
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Jindal, Adv.
Mr. S.B Upadhyay, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Prakash Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR
M/s. Unuc Legal LLP
Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Mr. Chandan KUmar Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR
Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka C., Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR
Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
3
Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR
Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR
Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr. Shobhit Jain, Adv.
Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv.
Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR
Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Ms. S. Janani, AOR
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
Ms. Merry S. Mathew, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. S.K Rajora, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sebbi M.S., Adv.
Mr. Martine Desuza, Adv.
Ms. Janifer Jose, Adv.
Mr. T. V. George, AOR
Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR
Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, AOR
Mr. Alok Kumar, AOR
Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. K. M Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Wasim Quadri, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Singhal, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Prahil Sharma, Adv.
4
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Ms. Nalin Kohli, Adv.
Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv.
Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv.
Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhle, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR
Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR
M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Mr. Jenis Francis, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR
Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR
Mr. Anil Nag, AOR
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR
Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
5
Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR
Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR
Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR
Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR
Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR
Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
Mr. T. L. Garg, AOR
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR
Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR
Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR
Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR
M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR
Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, AOR
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv.
6
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR
Mr. Nupur Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv.
Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR
Mr. Shweta Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Kajal Rani, Adv.
Mr. Vipin Kumar Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Mr. K. Rajeev, Adv.
Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy , AOR
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
7
Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Counsel
Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR
Mr. Amol V. Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Mimansak Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. Prannoy Joe Sebastian, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR
Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR
Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka C., Adv.
Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR
Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR
Ms. Nilanjani Tandon, Adv.
Ms. Vaidehi Kothari, Adv.
Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR
Mr. Suprabh Kumar Roshan, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Singh Rawat, Adv.
Ms. Snehal U. Kanzarkar, Adv.
M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR
Mr. Shridhan Y. Chitale, Adv.
Mr. Pranay S. Chitale, Adv.
Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Anupam Ngangom, Adv.
Mr. Wahengbam Immanuel Meitei, Adv.
Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv.
8
Mr. Bishwendra Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shivani, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR
Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR
Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv.
Mr. S. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv.
Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv.
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR
Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Verma, Adv.
Ms. Simanta Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Adv.
Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit K Pateria, Adv.
Mr. Jainendra Ojha, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR
Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Mr. Abbas. B, Adv.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Arnav Singh Deo, Adv.
Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR
9
Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, AAG
Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR
Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Girish Chodary, Adv.
Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. No. 89524 of 2020
We are informed across the bar that the issue involved in this application is pending before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in M.A. No. 2362 of 2019 titled as "Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.".
It is, therefore, appropriate that this application be placed before the same Bench alongwith the afore-stated miscellaneous application.
Registry is directed to take necessary steps. I.A. No. 121642 of 2018 By an order dated 08.10.2012, this Court had directed that the existing pensions of all the past pensioners who had retired after 01.01.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions were consolidated as per Karnataka Model shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners, subject to 10 minimum of 50 per cent of the revised pay scale of their respective posts.
In our orders dated 05.04.2022 and 04.05.2022, we had considered the grievance of the applicants that in spite of specific directions, some of the States have not complied with the said directions.
It was informed by Shri Gopal Jha, learned counsel that some of the retired judicial officers were almost 90 years of age when the aforesaid orders were passed.
By the said orders, a direction was issued to all the State Governments to comply with the directions issued by this Court as on 08.10.2012 and submit compliance report within a period of four weeks from the said date.
Almost a period of six months has lapsed from the said date, Shri Gopal Jha, learned counsel submits that the grievance still exists and now one of the members of the association has turned 93 years of age.
Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Amicus Curiae, has placed on record a chart pointing out the position with regard to the States which have complied with or not complied with the said directions.
A perusal of the chart would reveal that the following States have not complied with the said directions:
(1) Arunachal Pradesh
11
(2) Bihar
(3) Haryana
(4) Kerala
(5) Maharashtra
(6) Manipur
(7) Meghalaya
(8) Mizorum
(9) Odisha
(10) Punjab
(11) Goa
(12) West Bengal
(13) Tamil Nadu
(14) Madhya Pradesh
(15) Jharkhand
The affidavit further reveal that the following Union
Territories have also not complied with the directions:
(i) Delhi
(ii) Andaman & Nicobar
(iii) Chandigarh
(iv) J & K
(v) Ladakh
(vi) Lakshadweep
(vii) Daman & Diu and Dadar & Nagar Haveli
(viii) Puducherry
12
In so far as the Union Territory of Puducherry is
concerned, the chart shows that though the sanction has been sought from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India, on 29.08.2016, no response has been received from the Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India, in that regard. We, therefore, direct all the State Governments and Union Territories to comply with the directions contained in the orders dated 08.10.2012, 05.04.2022 and 04.05.2022. For the sake of clarification, we direct that the existing pension of all the past pensioners, who have retired after 01.01.1996 and the pensioners whose pensions are consolidated as per Karnataka Model, shall be raised by 3.07 times on par with the other pensioners, subject to minimum of 50 per cent of the revised pay scales of their respective posts.
We grant three months' period by way of last chance to all the States and the Union Territories to comply with the said directions.
The Chief Secretaries of all the aforestated States/Union Territories are directed to ensure that the necessary directions are issued for complying our direction in letter and spirit, and compliance report is submitted to this Court in this regard.
List this application on 10.01.2023 at 2:00 p.m. 13 We further clarify that in the event any of the States or Union Territories does not comply with the aforesaid directions, we will be constrained to hold the Chief Secretaries of the respective States or Union Territories guilty for having committed contempt of this Court. The Registrar (Judicial) is to ensure that the said order is personally communicated to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/ Union Territories mentioned hereinabove. It is also informed that in some of the States/Union Territories wherein though a notification has been issued for enhancing the pension, it has not actually been given effect to, by making payment of the arrears.
Mere issuance of notification would not serve the purpose unless the payment in effect has been made to the retired persons.
We further direct all the States/Union Territories to file affidavit(s), stating therein that true compliance of the aforesaid orders, that is, notification as well as the actual payment to the pensioners, has been made. We further direct the Union of India through Ministry of Law & Justice to clarify the position on an affidavit as to whether the aforesaid directions have been complied with in letter and spirit with regard to the Union Territories. We request the Standing Counsel of all the States/ Union 14 Territories to furnish copy of the compliance affidavit(s) to the learned Amicus Curiae, well-in-advance, so that the learned Amicus Curiae is able to assist the Court. I.A. Nos. 162247 and 162248 of 2018 AND I.A. Nos. 162199 and 162201 of 2018 List the applications along with I.A. No.121642 of 2018. I.A. Nos. 73015, 72900, 40695 of 2021 and 50269 of 2022 Issue notice to the non-applicant(s), returnable within six weeks.
Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
So far as the respondent-State is concerned, liberty is granted to serve the Standing Counsel for the State. I.A. Nos. 88342, 88344 and 91009 of 2022 Issue notice to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court, returnable within four weeks. I.A. Nos. 129336, 130186 and 131652 of 2022, 143746 of 2022, 143741 of 2022 and 143434 of 2022 Upon being mentioned by Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel, I.A. Nos. 143746 of 2022 and 143741 of 2022 are taken on Board.
Upon being mentioned by Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, I.A. No. 143434 of 2022 is taken on Board.
I.A. Nos. 129336 of 2022, 143746 of 2022 and 143741 of 2022 are filed by Judicial Officers working in Delhi Judicial 15 Service seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 19th April 2022 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 and I.A. No.249 of 2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989 and for further direction to carry forward the unfilled seats of the calendar year 2021 available for the Limited Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “LCE”) quota and apportion them to the 65% quota available for promotion.
Whereas I.A. No.143434 of 2022 has been filed by the applicants, who had filed I.A. No.89454 of 2021, wherein the order dated 19th April, 2022 came to be passed by this Court.
In the first set of I.As, i.e., I.A. Nos. 129336 of 2022, 143746 of 2022 and 143741 of 2022, we have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsels.
The learned Senior Counsels submit that the order dated 19th April 2022 would apply only prospectively, and as such, the relaxation which is directed by the said order would not be applicable for filling up the seats in the LCE quota available prior to 19th April 2022, i.e., the date of passing of the said order.
The learned Senior Counsels submit that in the advertisement dated 15th July 2022, 15 posts were notified under LCE quota, whereas, as a matter of fact, if the order dated 19th April 2022 is given prospective effect, only 1 seat 16 would be available under LCE quota.
The learned Senior Counsels further submits that the Delhi High Court, in its communication dated 26 th August 2022, has erroneously shown that 4 vacancies are available under LCE quota, whereas, in fact, only 1 vacancy would be available under the said quota.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsels further relied upon the proviso to Rule 7(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “DHJS Rules”). It is their submission that since 11 posts which were notified vide advertisement dated 15th July 2021 could not be filled till the end of the year 2021 on account of non-availability of eligible candidates under the LCE quota, the same are required to be reverted back to the promotional quota and thus, are required to be filled in only on the basis of the promotion by applying the principle of merit-cum-seniority. They have, therefore, reiterated that the Delhi High Court has erred in notifying four (04) vacancies under the LCE quota for the year 2022.
In I.A. No.143434 of 2022, we have heard Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the applicants. The learned Senior Counsel submits that order dated 19th April 2022 was passed in I.A. No. 89454 of 2021, which was filed by the same applicants as are in I.A. 17 No.143434 of 2022. It is submitted that the present applicants had approached this Court and prayed for relaxation of the qualifying service so as to appear for LCE. It is, therefore, submitted that 2 seats, which are referred to in Para 15 of the order dated 19th April 2022 passed by this Court in I.A. No.89454 of 2021 and other connected I.As., should be filled in by appointing these two applicants, subject to their clearing the LCE.
Mr. Naidu submitted that the law only helps those who knock on the doors of the Court and not those who do not approach the Court for the redressal of their grievances. He submits that the intent of the order dated 19 th April 2022 is very much clear. This Court clearly intended that these two applicants should be appointed against the said 2 seats reserved for LCE quota, subject to their clearing qualifying examination.
During the hearing, one glaring fact has come to our notice from the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi High Court dated 22nd September, 2022.
Vide advertisement dated 15th July 2021, the Delhi High Court had notified eleven (11) posts under LCE quota. The applicants in I.A. Nos.89454 of 2021 had immediately approached this Court for modification of the orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th April 2010 passed by this Court in the 18 present writ petition. They had prayed to do away with the requirement of 5 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and modify the same with the requirement of 10 years total qualifying service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) When the said interlocutory applications were pending for consideration before this court, the Scrutiny Committee of the High Court of Delhi had considered the issue in its meeting dated 24th February 2022. The Scrutiny Committee of the High Court of Delhi in the said meeting has resolved thus:
"After deliberation it is resolved that the matter with regard to filling up of all the
11 Limited Competitive Examination vacancies as per Rule 7(1)(a) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, in accordance with proviso to Rule 7(2) of the said Rules, be not processed till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.A. No. 89450/2021, 89454/2021 and 88976 of 2021 inWrit Petition (C) No. 1022/1989 titled "All India Judges Association Vs. UOI & Ors." We may also add that as and when such 11 vacancies are eventually filled up, the aspect related to their seniority shall be governed in accordance with Rule 8 of the DHJS Rules, 1970".
As the question with regard to filling up of 11 vacancies under the LCE quota was sub-judice before this Court, the Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court rightly decided that the matter of filling up the said 11 posts should not be processed till the decision of this Court in the aforesaid interlocutory applications.
19
It was also observed that as and when such 11 vacancies are eventually filled up, the aspect related to their seniority shall be governed in accordance with Rule 8 of the DHJS Rules.
The order of this Court dated 19th April 2022 passed in I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 and other connected interlocutory applications directed the relaxation insofar as the number of years of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) is concerned. On the date on which I.A. No.89454 of 2021 was filed, those 11 vacancies notified by the Advertisement dated 15th July 2021 were very much available under the LCE quota.
Vide letter dated 19th August, 2021, 22 additional posts of Delhi Higher Judicial Services were sanctioned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Out of the said 22 posts of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, three posts came to be allocated to the LCE quota. One more vacancy had arisen in the month of July 2022 under the LCE quota.
As such, when the order was passed by this Court on 19 th April 2022, 15 posts were available under LCE quota.
After the order dated 19th April 2022 was passed by this Court, another meeting of the Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court was held on 9th September 2022. The Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court in the said meeting recommended thus:
20
“Besides 11 vacancies the above four vacancies have also been notified in the Notification No.172-183/Exam.Cell/DHJSLC Exam/2022 dated of 15.07.2022.
The process with regard to 11 vacancies had already taken place in the year 2021 and all these vacancies remained vacant on account of non-availability of eligible candidates, as such it is resolved that in terms of proviso to Rule 7 of Delhi Higher Judicial Service rules, 1970 as well as the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Assn. case & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 170, these 11 vacancies are to be filled under Rule 7(1)(a) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
Since three vacancies were never advertised in the year 2021 and one vacancy has arisen in the month of July, 2022, as such it is further resolved that the Examination Committee be requested to continue with the process of holding of Limited Competitive Examination in respect of these four vacancies only as per the relax criteria laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on ‘All India Judges Association And Others versus Union of India and Others in the matter of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and another” dated 19.04.2022.” The above recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee was duly approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
We find that the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee, reproduced herein above, in its meeting dated 9th September 2022, which was approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, is erroneous. When the 21 Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court itself, in its earlier meeting dated 24th February 2022 had resolved not to process the filling up of 11 posts under LCE quota till the outcome of the proceedings before this Court, the Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court after the order of this Court dated 19th April 2022 was passed, could not have resolved on 9th September 2022 to revert back the said 11 posts to the promotional cadre.
It is to be noted that when I.A. No.89454 of 2021 was filed by the two applicants herein, 11 posts were already notified by the Delhi High Court under LCE quota. When the matter was sub-judice before this Court, the Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court in its meeting dated 24th February 2022, understanding the position correctly, resolved not to process the matter of filling up of 11 vacancies under LCE quota till the decision of the matter pending before this Court. The Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court in the said meeting dated 24th February 2022 had also observed that as and when such 11 vacancies would eventually be filled up, the aspect related to their seniority would be governed in accordance with Rule 8 of the DHJS Rules, 1970. Having taken such a conscious decision in its meeting dated 24th February, 2022, the Scrutiny Committee of the Delhi High Court could not have taken a contrary decision in its 22 meeting dated 9th September 2022, after this Court had passed the order dated 19th April 2022.
The issue with regard to those 11 vacancies was very much sub-judice before this Court. During the pendency of the lis before this Court, four more posts were made available under the LCE quota. As such, when the order was passed by this Court on 19th April 2022, 15 vacancies were available under the LCE quota. As such, the High Court ought to have proceeded with filling up of these 15 posts under LCE quota. In so far as the reliance placed by Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsels, on proviso to Rule 7(2) of the DHJS Rules is concerned, the said question would arise only when the eligible candidates are not available or they have not been able to qualify the examination, as provided under Rule 7(1)(a) of the DHJS Rules. No such examination was held after this Court’s order dated 19th April 2022 was passed, and as such, the question of these posts reverting back to the promotional quota does not arise.
The very purpose of providing the promotion through the LCE is to promote merit and to provide incentive(s) to the meritorious candidates.
The right available to such candidates cannot be frustrated and that too, when the issue was pending before 23 this Court.
Insofar as the contention of Mr. Naidu that the candidates represented by him should be selected if they qualify LCE, in preference to other more meritorious candidates appearing for the said LCE, is concerned, we find no merit in the said submission. The said candidates will have to compete with the other candidates who have become eligible as per this Court’s order dated 19th April 2022. We, therefore direct the Delhi High Court to hold the examination for filing up of 15 posts under LCE quota within a period of three months from today.
I.A. Nos. 129336, 130186 and 131652 of 2022, 143746 of 2022, 143741 of 2022 and 143434 of 2022 are disposed of in the above terms.
I.A.Nos. 143707 and 143709 of 2022 I.A. Nos. 143707 and 143709 of 2022 are disposed of in terms of the order dated 26th September 2022 passed in I.A. Nos. 129336 of 2022, 143746 of 2022, 143741 of 2022 and 143434 of 2022.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (ANJU KAPOOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)