Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thereafter on 29th March 2014, the learned Registrar General of this Court was pleased to issue a letter to all Principal Judges informing all the concerned Judicial Officers that the Respondent No.1 had prepared a provisional seniority list of Judicial Officers in the cadre of District Judge who were recruited by nomination and promotion in the recruitment process of the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011. It was informed that the said list was available on the official website. By the said letter, the concerned Judicial Officers were further called upon to submit their written objections, if any, to the said provisional seniority list within a period of 30 days thereof. The lgc 11 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc Petitioners herein having perused the said seniority list submitted their objections to the same vide letter dated 25 th April 2014 along with the annexures appended to the said letter. The Petitioners also submitted the judgments of the Apex Court in support of their said objections. The sum and substance of the objections of the Petitioners was that the officers otherwise junior to the one of the Petitioners especially 3rd Petitioner were shown senior to the 3rd Petitioner and therefore in essence to the other Petitioners. The objections were also revolving around the fact that the Promotees who were issued appointment orders in the year 2008 were not treated as having been appointed in the year 2008 but treated as appointed in the year 2007 i.e. when the recruitment process began. It was therefore the case of the Petitioners that the 10 Promotee Recruits having been appointed in the year 2008 could not have been placed above the Petitioners who were direct Direct Recruits of 2008. The said objections of the Petitioners were considered by the Respondent No.1 and the same were rejected which was accordingly communicated to the Petitioners. Thereafter on 11 th September 2015 the final approved Seniority List of Judicial Officers in the cadre of District Judge recruited in the recruitment process of the years 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 came to be published. As indicated above it is the said Final Approved Seniority List of Judicial Officers in the cadre of District Judge dated 11 th September 2015 which is taken exception to by way of the above Writ Petition. Though the Petitioners are part of the 2 nd recruitment process by nomination lgc 12 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc which began in July 2007 and culminated in May 2008, the Petitioners have chosen to challenge the seniority list for the subsequent years. 5 On behalf of the Respondent No.1 i.e. the High Court an Affidavit in Reply has been filed by the learned Registrar (Legal & Research). The said Affidavit in Reply initially refers to the mode of recruitment to the post of District Judge i.e. by nomination, accelerated promotion and regular promotion. It is stated in the said Reply that the Petitioners had participated in the selection process of 2007 by way of nomination. It is stated that as the process for all the three modes including that of the Petitioners by direct recruitment had commenced in the same year, and all the candidates were considered as appointees of the same year for the purpose of the gradation/seniority list. Thereafter a table has been reproduced showing the dates on which the selection process for the different streams has commenced. It is thereafter stated in the Affidavit that in the selection process which commenced in March 2007 by direct recruitment 5 candidates were selected and as per the Government Notifications dated 26/09/2007 and 18/01/2008 the said 5 candidate were given appointments. Thereafter an Advertisement was issued on 05/07/2007 for filling up of 16 vacancies by nomination. It is stated that the number of vacancies was increased to 31 from 16 and that the present Petitioners were part of the said selection process. A select list of 33 candidates who were selected for the post of District Judge by nomination was lgc 13 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc approved in the Full Court Meeting dated 07/04/2008. It is further stated that in all 30 candidates including the Petitioners were appointed as per the Government Notification dated 25/04/2008. Out of 30 candidates, 29 candidates including the Petitioners joined their posting on 02/05/2018 and, one candidate namely Shriv S V Kulkarni did not join service pursuant to his selection. The remaining 3 candidates were appointed as per the Government Notification dated 31/05/2008. It is further stated that 9 Judicial Officers were promoted by accelerated promotion as per the decision taken in the Full Court Meeting dated 31/07/2007. It is further stated that in the Full Court Meeting dated 31/01/2008 the list of 79 Judicial Officers in addition to 8 Judicial Officers on the waiting list was approved for promotion to the post of District Judge by regular promotion. Out of these, 76 Judicial Officers were appointed as per Government Notification dated 12/03/2008, 8 Judicial Officers were appointed as per Government Notification dated 22/09/2008. Remaining two Judicial Officers were not given posting on account of pending vigilance inquiry. One of them was compulsory retired before he was given posting and the other Judicial Officer was prematurely retired on 02/09/2014. It is stated that the promotion of District Judges by regular promotion was completed before the process of selection of District Judges by nomination i.e. selection process of Petitioners. It is thereafter stated in the Affidavit that a Committee was constituted for fixing of the seniority of District Judges as per the Seniority Rules of 2007. The said Committee on 24 th December 2013 lgc 14 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc recommended to fix the seniority of District Judges who were appointed during the years 2007 till 2011. It is further stated that on 23 rd January 2014 the aforesaid Committee approved the seniority list and decided to place it before the Full Court. On 27/01/2014, the seniority list as approved was placed before the Full Court and it was decided to publish the seniority list of the District Judges as Provisional Seniority List, and invite objections to the same from the District Judges within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the said Provisional Seniority List. It is stated that accordingly the Provisional Seniority List was published on 29/03/2014 and on 06/08/2015 various objections were received from the Judicial Officers including some of the Petitioners were placed before the Committee which was constituted for the said purpose. It is stated that the Committee was pleased to reject the said objections. The Committee was of the view that as the time required to complete the recruitment process is not certain, the said process cannot be ignored only because it takes time. The Committee therefore considered the date of initiation of process as the norm for deciding the seniority and made it applicable uniformly. It is stated that the Judicial Officers recruited and promoted in the selection process 2007 to 2011 are placed in the seniority list as per 40 point roster system. It is stated that the District Judges who are part of the process of 2007 have been taken as appointees of the year 2007 irrespective of their date of appointments. It is stated that in all 132 District Judges were recruited and promoted in the lgc 15 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc selection process 2007. It is stated that the same exercise is carried out in respect of the years 2008, 2010 and 2011. It is stated that since the Petitioners are all of the process commenced in the year 2007 and therefore all of them have been taken in the same group and have been arranged in seniority as per the 40 point roster. Hence the sum and substance of the Affidavit in Reply is that since the selection process by nomination and by promotion was initiated simultaneously in the year 2007, accordingly the Petitioners and the Promotees of the said selection process have been considered together as one unit for ascertaining their seniority and have been fitted in the respective slots in the 40 point roster. It is lastly contended in the said Affidavit that the same has been done for giving an harmonious meaning to the rules of seniority by reckoning the seniority on the basis of the year in which the recruitment process commenced.

(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts.

(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible.

29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the members of the higher judicial service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three decades, a large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative seniority from the officers recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotees and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to the higher judicial service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 percent by following the principle "merit-cum-seniority", 25 percent strictly on merit by limited departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in recruitment exists, in so far as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40-point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members lgc 36 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question or any dispute arising. The 40-point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R.K.Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab. One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40- point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case as early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof, there would be no further dispute in the fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the higher judicial service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31-3- 2003."

because both those seniority lists were drawn up in accordance with rule of seniority enunciated in Annexure 'A' to Army Instruction No. 241 of 1950 dated September 1, 1949, and not in compliance with para 3(iii) of Appendix V."

(emphasis supplied) 15 The submission urged on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5 that every year in the month of January the seniority list of officers in all cadres shall be prepared and published and that only such officers who are validly appointed can be included in 40 point roster. We have already in the earlier part of this Judgment referred to the text of Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Rules. In so far as Rule 5 is concerned, it lays down that the seniority of candidates appointed in the unified cadre of District Judge will be regulated by 40 point roster. Rule 6 postulates that every year in the month of January the Respondent No.1 shall prepare and publish the gradation/seniority list of Judicial Officers. The gradation list is not to be confused with the seniority list, though only a thin line separates them. Rule 6 in the instant case contemplates a gradation list. The gradation list is prepared accordingly for each cadre and is the list of persons who have been recruited in that cadre and shown in the order of seniority as on 1 st January of that particular year. The manner of preparation of gradation list is set out in Rule 7 of the Maharashtra lgc 51 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules 1982. As indicated above the gradation list of the District Judges in terms of the said Rules has been prepared for the years 2009 to 2014 respectively. The said gradation list clarifies that the seniority will be fixed as per rules later on. The drawing up of Seniority List in the instant case would be dependent on the rules as well as other factors such as recruitment from different streams and placing them in the correct roster point as as per quota-rota rule. Rules 5 and 6 would have to interpreted in the context of the recruitment being from three different streams as contemplated by the Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan's case - II (supra) that the recruitment process commenced in March 2007 would have to be considered as one single process and the seniority of successful candidate of all the three streams would be regulated as per Rule 5. That the 40 point roster under Rule 5 would operate after recruitment as per quota and the seniority would be fixed as per roster point irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited.

16 The Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan's case - II (supra) has envisaged one single day for issuance of the appointment letter to all successful candidates i.e. 30/09/2007. Implicit in the same is the fact that the successful candidates from all the three streams would have to be deemed to have been recruited in one batch and accordingly their seniority would be regulated as per 40 point roster. The quota-rota which is embedded in the 40 point roster lgc 52 of 71 wp-13203.16.doc can only be adhered to if commencement of the recruitment process from different streams is considered as one batch so as to fit them in the respective slots in the 40 point roster. If the course of action as propounded on behalf of the Petitioners is followed, then it would result in the break down of the quota- rota, as there would be no promotees for the year 2007. It is trite that quota- rota should be maintained and should not undermined in any manner. Re : A. Janardhana's case (supra).