Gujarat High Court
Anish Bhupendrakumar Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat & 9 on 3 March, 2016
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7990 of 1998
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3332 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ANISH BHUPENDRAKUMAR BHATT....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 9....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MB GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIPAK R DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitiioner(s) No.1 in Special Civil
Appication No.3332 of 2004
MR SWAPNESHWAR GOUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
LAW OFFICER BRANCH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR BS PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 - 6 , 8
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR JINESH H KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 9 - 10
MRS RANJAN B PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 - 6 , 8
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 4 , 7
Page 1 of 21
HC-NIC Page 1 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 03/03/2016
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. As the issue involved in both these petitions is common, both the petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed that direction be given to respondent no.2 to forthwith make the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Bailiff from the select list of 1990. The petitioners have also prayed that this Court be pleased to declare that the circular dated 10.12.1991 issued by the respondents as illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and such guidelines cannot effect the vested rights of a selected candidate. It is also prayed that the petitioners may be given the retrospective effect for appointment from the date the candidate appointed after first two candidates from the select list and seniority on that basis be also directed to be considered for the petitioners.
Page 2 of 21
HC-NIC Page 2 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
3.1. That an advertisement was published in the concerned newspaper whereby the applications for the recruitment to the post of Bailiff were invited by the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The petitioners of both these petitions submitted applications for the said post. Both the petitioners were fulfilling the eligibility criteria and after the interview, they were selected by the concerned Selection Committee.
The select list was prepared by the respondents and in the said select list, name of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.7990 of 1998 was shown at Sr.No.3 whereas the name of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.3332 of 2004 was shown at Sr.No.4.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that though he was selected and placed at Sr.No.3 in the select list, his appointment was not made on the post of bailiff whereas respondent no.2 promoted the peons on the post of Bailiff as per the guidelines issued by respondent no.3 on 10.12.1991.
3.3 It has come on record that during the
Page 3 of 21
HC-NIC Page 3 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
pendency of this petition, the petitioner of
Special Civil Application No.7990 of 1998 has
been appointed on the post of Bailiff in the year 2000 whereas the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.3332 of 2004 has been appointed in the year 2004 and, therefore, now the petitioners have prayed that deemed date be granted to them from the date on which promotees were appointed on the post of bailiff i.e. from 1991.
3.4 Heard learned advocate Mr.Gandhi for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.7990 of 1998 and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.3332 of 2004, learned advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 and learned AGP Mr.Swapneshwar Goutam for respondent no.1.
3.5 Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that as per the resolution passed by Government of Bombay, Home Department in the year 1957, service conditions and selection manner with respect to the recruitment in the subordinate judiciary under the control of the High Court of Gujarat were framed. As per Rule 7, "any list prepared by the Advisory Committee shall continue to remain in force till the list is exhausted." As per Rule 9 of the said Rules, "every year when the Advisory Page 4 of 21 HC-NIC Page 4 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT Committee meets to prepare the list, it shall also scrutinize the previous list in order to strike off the persons ineligible for appointment for the said list." It is pointed out by learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that as per the recruitment rules framed on 22.11.1982 for appointment to the post of Bailiff, 25% of the post of Bailiffs shall ordinarily be filled in by promotion from amongst persons in the cadre of peons including Hawaldar, Naiks, Watchman and Jail Wardens having put in not less than three years service and possessing requisite educational qualifications for being appointed on the post of Bailiff and also otherwise suitable for said post. As per Rule 6, appointment to the post in the cadre of the Bailiff shall be made on 1:3 basis from the select list of promotees and the select list of candidates selected by direct recruitment. Thus, it is contended by learned advocates for the petitioners that by way of the said rules, ratio of appointment on the post of bailiff was 1:3 between the promotees and direct recruits. The aforesaid rules were in existence when the petitioners were selected in the year 1990 as per the advertisement published in the concerned newspaper. The select list was prepared in the year 1990 and, therefore, the case of the petitioners would be governed by the Rules of 1982.
Page 5 of 21
HC-NIC Page 5 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
3.6 Learned advocates for the petitioners
would further contend that on 10.12.1991, the
guidelines were issued by the respondent no.3
whereby the earlier guidelines with regard to
appointment of persons on the post of Bailiff was modified. As per the said modification, 75% of the posts of Bailiffs shall be filled in by promotion from amongst persons in the cadre of Peons including Hawaldar, Naiks, Watchmen and Jail Wardens having put in not less than three years service and possessing requisite educational qualification for being appointed on the post of bailiff and is otherwise suitable for such post. As per the amended Rule 6, the appointment in the cadre of Bailiff shall be made on 3:1 basis from the select list of promotees and the select list of candidates selected by direct recruitment. Thus, in the year 1991, the aforesaid ratio which was fixed in the year 1982 was changed from 1:3 to 3:1. Learned advocates, therefore, contended that the modification which was made in the year 1991 would not be applicable to the case of the petitioners as their names were reflected in the select list which was prepared for direct recruits. Such amendment cannot be made applicable retrospectively.
3.7. Learned advocates for the petitioners
Page 6 of 21
HC-NIC Page 6 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
thereafter contended that the respondent no.2 has not maintained the ratio and during the period between 1990-2000, the respondent no.2 has promoted 14 persons on the post of Bailiff from the cadre of Peons. Learned advocates have referred to the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by Registrar of respondent no.2 and submitted that during the period between 1982- 1990 also, the posts of Bailiffs were filled in by promotion from the cadre of Peons. At this stage, learned advocates appearing for the petitioners further referred to the documents produced on record and submitted that the two persons from the select list of direct recruits were also appointed on the post of Bailiff on the basis of the instruction given by respondent no.3 on administrative side. On 1.3.1990, one Mr.A.T.Chaudhary and Shri R.K.Jagatiya were appointed from the select list which was prepared in the year 1990. It is therefore contended that the person who was at Sr.No.9 in the said select list was appointed on the post of Bailiff. The case of the petitioners was not considered by the respondents. It is pointed out that when this Court has passed an interim order on 2.3.1999, the respondent no.2 has appointed the petitioner of Special Civil Application No.7990 of 1998 whereas the petitioner of other petition was appointed on 3.8.2004. Thus, it is submitted that Page 7 of 21 HC-NIC Page 7 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT both these petitioners be given deemed date appointment from March, 1990 when the respondents have appointed Mr.A.T.Chaudhary and Mr.R.K.Jagatia. It is also contended that the respondents have not maintained ratio of promotees and direct recruits as per the prevailing rules and therefore also the deemed date be granted to the petitioners from 1990 and also consequential benefits be given to them.
3.8 Learned advocates have placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court on 26.2.2014 in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Haribhai J Chaudhri since deceased through heirs in Special Civil Application No.11550 of 2012 and allied matters, decision dated 24.12.2014 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.M.Patel V/s State of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No.476 of 2014 and allied matters, in the case of Mangat Ram V/s State of Punjab and others reported in (2005)9 SCC 323, in the case of Patel Shilpaben Gordhanbhai V/s State of Gujarat reported in 2009(JX) Guj.1150.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 mainly contended that merely because the petitioners were selected and their names were placed in the select list, they do not have any Page 8 of 21 HC-NIC Page 8 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT vested right of appointment on the post of Bailiff. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has thereafter submitted that recruitment rules of 1957 did not provide for any ratio to be observed between the direct recruits and promotees. Respondent no.3 thereafter issued the guidelines on 22.11.1982. As per the said guidelines, ratio of 1:3 was required to be maintained while appointing the persons on the post of Bailiff i.e. 25% of the posts of Bailiff shall be filled in by way of promotion whereas 75% was to be filled in by way of direct selection. However, respondent no.3 thereafter issued another guidelines whereby the aforesaid ratio was changed from 1:3 to 3:1. Thus, as per the guidelines of 10.12.1991, now the persons on the post of Bailiff were required to be appointed in the aforesaid ratio i.e. 75% by way of promotion and 25% by way of direct recruitment. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi thereafter would contend that the ratio which is required to be maintained for the purpose of making appointment from either category would be the one prevailing at the time of making the appointment and not one which was prevailing at the time of advertisement or selection. From the record, it has been appointed that the sanctioned strength for the post of bailiffs is 23. There was only one vacancy as on 1.1.1990. There were 18 direct recruits as against four promotees. As there was Page 9 of 21 HC-NIC Page 9 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT no employee belonging to S.T.category at the time of preparation of list itself, the respondent no.3 directed the respondent no.2 to immediately appoint two candidates belonging to S.T.category from the list that was prepared pursuant to the advertisement. It is contended that with a view to fill up the backlog of S.T.category, Mr.Chaudhary and Mr.Jagatiya were appointed on 1.3.1990. He, therefore, submitted that no illegality is committed by respondent nos.2 and 3 while appointing two persons of S.T.category from the list which was prepared in the year 1990. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi referred to the chart which is produced at page 82 of the compilation and submitted that one Mr.I.M.Naik belonging to S.T. Category was given appointment from the list of promotees as per the decision taken by the Selection Committee of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad to fill in the backlog of S.T.candidate. He was, therefore, promoted on 1.3.1993. It is also submitted that the petitioners were given appointment pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court and no appointment was given from the list of direct recruits in view of the changed guidelines between 1.3.1993 and 3.4.2000, four persons were given promotion i.e. one Mr.I.M.Naik as stated earlier and three other persons were appointed in the year 1998. The said persons were appointed by Page 10 of 21 HC-NIC Page 10 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT way of promotion. Thus, it is contended that merely because the name of the petitioners were reflected in the select list, they have no vested right for appointment and none of the persons below the petitioners were appointed prior to the date on which the petitioners were appointed on the post of Bailiff. Thus, deemed date as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He, therefore, requested that this petition be dismissed.
5. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned advocate Mr.Joshi has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Suseela and Ors. v/s University Grants Commission and Ors., reported in AIR 2015 SC 1976 and in the case of D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik and others v/s State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2005(8) SCC
454.
6. Learned AGP Mr.Goutam has supported the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate Mr.Joshi.
7. Having considered the arguments canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through Page 11 of 21 HC-NIC Page 11 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT the material produced on record and decisions relied upon by learned advocates, it has emerged from the record that the State Government framed the Rules in the year 1957 for appointments in the lower Judiciary. The respondent no.3 issued guidelines on 22.11.1982 whereby for appointment to the post of Bailiff, ratio of 1:3 was prescribed i.e. 25% by way of promotion and 75% by way of direct recruitment. Thereafter, respondent no.3 has issued another circular by amending the aforesaid circular dated 10.12.1991 and as per the same, the aforesaid ratio has been changed from 1:3 to 3:1 i.e. 75% by way of promotion and 25% by way of direct selection. It is not in dispute that names of the petitioners were reflected in the selection list which was prepared in the year 1990 on the basis of the advertisement which was issued in the year 1989. From the record, it is further revealed that during the period between 1982-1990, the respondent no.2 has appointed six persons on the post of Bailiff by way of promotion from the cadre of Peons and thereafter again 14 persons were appointed on the post of Bailiff by way of promotion from the cadre of Peons. The respondents have not violated the ratio prescribed under the prevailing guidelines. It is contended by learned advocates appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 that two persons from the Page 12 of 21 HC-NIC Page 12 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT select list prepared in the year 1990 were appointed with a view to fill up the backlog of S.T.category candidates. However, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have not produced any material on record with regard to the roster point. Reference is made with regard to the letter issued by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 whereby respondent no.3, on administrative side, directed the respondent no.2 to appoint Mr.Chaudhary and Mr.Jagatiya against the backlog vacancies of S.T. Candidates as a special case. In the said communication, it is also stated that respondent no.2 has not stated as to from where the roster points are commenced. Thus, when the two persons were appointed from the select list who were at Sr.Nos.1 and 9 and when the respondents have not followed the ratio prescribed as per the guidelines framed by respondent no.3, the petitioners were entitled to get the appointment from the date on which list of direct recruits was operated. It is admitted by respondent no.2 in the affidavit that four persons were appointed from the select list of direct recruits. However, all the four persons were appointed after 3.4.2000 i.e. in the year 2000, 2004 and 2008 whereas during the period between 1993 to 2000, various persons were appointed by way of promotion on the post of Bailiff.
Page 13 of 21
HC-NIC Page 13 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
8. It is true that merely because name of the petitioners were reflected in the select list, they do not have vested right for appointment. However, as per the settled legal position, they are having right of being considered as and when the persons from the said list were appointed. In the case of Mangat Ram (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held in paragraphs 4,5,6 and 8 as under:
"4. The reservation has to be worked out in relation to the post and the concept of vacancy has no relevance.
5. How the concept of carrying forward of reservation is to be worked out has been laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India. It would be useful to reproduce paras 21 and 22 from the said decision which read as under:
"The SE Railway runs only two secondary schools for girls, one at Adra and the other at Kharagpur. The vacancy at Adra was filled on 16-8-1966 by the appointment of the seniormost Assistant Mistress Smt Gita Biswas. In pursuance of the memorandum dated 4-12-1963 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Railway Board revised the Model Roster by their letter of 16-1-1964. The first point in this roster is a reserved point and therefore the Adra vacancy was strictly a reserved vacancy. But there being only one vacancy in the particular year of recruitment, it had to be treated as unreserved and therefore the appointment went to Smt Biswas, an open, not a reserved candidate. This, however, had to Page 14 of 21 HC-NIC Page 14 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT be compensated for by carrying forward the reservation, though not over more than 2 subsequent recruitment years. For the purpose of services under the Railway Administration `recruitment year' means the `financial year' and the Adra appointment having been made in the financial year 1966-67, it was permissible to carry forward the reservation till the close of financial year 1968-69. There was no vacancy in 1967-68. The vacancy in the post of the Headmistress of the Kharagpur school occurred in the financial year 1968-69 by the retirement of Smt Bina Devi with effect from 31-12-1968. This vacancy, indubitably, had to be treated as a reserved vacancy and since from amongst the 4 Assistant Mistresses, Respondent 8 was the only candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste, she was entitled to be considered for selection to the post of the Headmistress, to the exclusion of the other 3. The claims, if any, of the petitioner who is not a reserved candidate have to be postponed, though in the normal course it may be quite some years before she gets her turn. The Adra Headmistress and Respondent 8 would seem to have a long tenure in their respective offices.
It is urged that only one vacancy occurred in 1968-69 and since the letter of the Railway Board dated 16-1964 says that `if there be only one vacancy, it should be treated as unreserved', the Kharagpur vacancy must be treated as unreserved. Such a construction would rob the rule of its prime significance and will render the carry-forward provision illusory. Though each year of recruitment is to be treated separately and by itself, a reserved vacancy has to be carried forward over 2 years, if it is not filled in by the appointment of a reserved candidate. The open class reaped a benefit in 1966-67 when a Page 15 of 21 HC-NIC Page 15 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT reserved vacancy was treated as unreserved by the appointment of an open candidate Smt Gita Biswas. If the carry-forward rule has to be given any meaning, the vacancy shall have to be carried forward for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes until the cost of the financial year 1968-69. The Kharagpur vacancy was to be filled in on 1-1-
1969 and hence it cannot go to the petitioner who, admittedly, does not belong to the reserved class. The construction sought to be put on the rule by the petitioner would perpetuate a social injustice which has clouded the lives of a large section of humanity which is struggling to find its feet. Such a construction is contrary to the plain language of the letter of the Railway Board, the intendment of the rule and its legislative history."
6. We may note that in the present case there is no controversy of a financial year being a recruitment year. Further, as a result of decision in Arati Ray Choudhury case the Government of Punjab issued a circular dated 11-10-1974, deciding that "it has now been decided that the reservation with respect to the solitary vacancy so unreserved and carried forward must be given effect to on the occasion next arising when a solitary vacancy occurs in the same cadre."
The appellant, relying on this circular, sought review of the judgment, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, but the review petition was also rejected. Therefore, the appellant in these appeals has challenged both the judgments i.e. the one whereby the writ petition was dismissed and also the judgment and order whereby review petition was dismissed.
Page 16 of 21
HC-NIC Page 16 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
8. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the order dated 7-2-1997 and hold that the post in question was required to be filled by a reserved category candidate. The appellant was unjustifiably denied that promotion. He is directed to be appointed from 7-2-1997 i.e. from the date when post was filled by appointment of Respondent 3. The appellant would be entitled to all consequential benefits as well."
9. In the case of Patel Shlipaben (Supra), this Court while disposing off the appeal has appeared in paragraph 2 as under:
"2.Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question involved in this case is that what should be the date of appointment to be given to the petitioner because, appointment has already been offered to the petitioner as per the order of the learned Single Judge and the respondents have appointed the petitioner. Since the case of the petitioner was that she is entitled to the marks on sports participation and which was wrongfully denied and subsequently been granted to her. This Court in Special Civil Application No.14750 of 2004 granted the benefit of antedate appointment on the day when others who were in the same recruitment were given the appointment. We feel that the same date has to be granted to the petitioner. However, we would make it clear that this would not entail the petitioner with any financial benefits and for notional purposes the petitioner would be granted a deemed date of appointment, which was granted to other employees pursuant to the same advertisement."Page 17 of 21
HC-NIC Page 17 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
10. This Court in Special Civil Application No.12387 of 2013 in the case of Baraiya Liladhar Gagarambhai V/s State of Gujarat decided on 3.2.2015, after considering the decision rendered by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed and held in paragraphs 12 and 13 as under:
"12. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this court, it is amply clear that the petitioner is entitled to be given a deemed date of appointment from the date when the other candidates who were less meritorious than him were given appointment. Moreover, the petitioner being more meritorious is also entitled to be granted seniority over the said candidates.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to give deemed date of appointment to the petitioner from 2nd April, 2011, that is, the date when less meritorious candidates were given appointments. The petitioner shall also be placed higher on the seniority list than the above referred candidates who were less meritorious than him. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs."
11. The decision upon which the learned advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 has placed reliance in the case of P.Suseela and ors., is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in Page 18 of 21 HC-NIC Page 18 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT paragraph 15 as under:
"15. Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation. Such condition would only be prospective as it would apply only at the stage of appointment. It is clear, therefore, that the contentions of the private appellants before us must fail."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in fact observed that a vested right would arise only if the person less meritorious to the petitioner was appointed on the post. It is also held that there is no vested right in any candidate merely because their name is reflected in the select list, however, at the same time, it has also been observed that the person whose name is reflected in the select list has right to be considered for the post for which his selection was made.
Page 19 of 21
HC-NIC Page 19 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016
C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT
13. In the case of D.Ganesh Rao Patnaik and
others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in paragraph 10 as under:
"10. Before dealing with the main issue raised in the appeal, namely, the inter se seniority of direct recruits and the promotees, the first and foremost question which requires consideration is whether for calculating the one-third quota of direct recruits as provided in Rule 6, the temporary posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges have to be included or not. Rule 6 only says that of the posts in the cadre of the Service, two-thirds shall be filled by promotion and one-third by direct recruitment. Cadre is defined in sub-rule(a) of Rule 2 and it means the cadre of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service. It is important to note here that the definition of "cadre", as given in the aforesaid rule does not say that the temporary posts have not to be taken into consideration or have to be excluded nor there is any indication to that effect. "Cadre" means the entire cadre of the Bihar Superior Judicial Service and, therefore, there is no warrant for excluding the temporary posts."
14. However, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, keeping in mind the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, if the facts of the present case are considered and Page 20 of 21 HC-NIC Page 20 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016 C/SCA/7990/1998 JUDGMENT as discussed hereinabove, when the respondents have not followed the ratio as per the guidelines and the respondents have appointed two persons from the select list, the petitioners are entitled to get appointment from the date on which the person who is below in the select list was appointed. The petitioners are now appointed on the post of Bailiff in April, 2000 and August, 2004 respectively. The respondents are hereby directed to give them deemed date appointment from 1991, the date on which the other two persons namely Mr.Chaudhary and Mr.Jagatiya were appointed. However, the petitioners are not entitled to get any arrears for the said period and as observed by this Court in the case of Patel Shilpaben, the petitioners are not entitled to any financial benefits and for notional purposes, they would be granted the deemed date of appointment which was granted to the other employees pursuant to the same advertisement.
16. With these observations and directions, both these petitions are disposed off. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Srilatha Page 21 of 21 HC-NIC Page 21 of 21 Created On Sun Mar 13 23:23:32 IST 2016