Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Rules of 2004 have come into being following the directions given by the Supreme Court in paragraph 29 of All India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra) which is as follows:-

"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 Higher Judicial Service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 per cent by following the principle "merit-cum-seniority", 25 per cent 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 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 of 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."
"10. It is stated that presently the seniority has been determined as per 40 points roster as adopted in Andhra Pradesh and it has been decided to follow the said roster as per direction issued in the case of All India Judges' Association Vs. Union of India (Reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247)."

The stand of the High Court administration is that, the 40 Point Roster system read with Andhra Pradesh model applies for the purpose of fixation of seniority inter se amongst the appointees to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). This stand has not been substantiated by any of the parties to be incorrect. Rule 31 of the Rules of 2004 in its first proviso provides that the 40 point roster system would be followed for the purpose of determination of the inter se seniority. Therefore, the second issue is answered by holding that, the 40 Point Roster system read with the Andhra Pradesh model would apply for the purpose of fixation of seniority inter se amongst the appointees to the post of District Judge (Entry Level).

Rule 31 of the Rules of 2004 dealing with seniority requires determination of seniority for all the three avenues of appointment to be made from the date of promotion to the post, date of selection to the post as District Judge (Entry Level) or the date of appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) as the case may be. In the present case, the promotion, appointment and selection to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) had happened on October 28, 2009. In terms of the first proviso to Rule 31 of the Rules of 2004, the inter se seniority must be fixed in accordance with the 40 Point Roster system as determined by the High Court. The High Court had determined the 40 Point Roster system read with the Andhra Pradesh model as discussed above. The impugned letter circular containing the draft gradation list is not in accordance with the 40 Point Roster system read with the Andhra Pradesh model.

When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising." Reading the directions of All India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra) and Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) (supra) together one can safely infer that, all the three avenues of appointments would culminate into an appointment or a promotion or a selection, as the case may be, to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on one single day and that, the inter se seniority amongst such persons would be determined in terms of the 40 Point Roster system as may be adopted by a High Court. Our High Court has adopted the 40 Point Roster system read with Andhra Pradesh model. Consequently, the date of October 28, 2009 is taken for the purpose of consideration of the inter se seniority amongst the three avenues of appointment, in the facts of the present case. Even if the appointment, promotion or selection does not culminate on a single day, then also, in view of the direction quoted from All India Judges' Association & Ors. (supra), the recruitment being annual and happening on the basis of a quota, the roster system is to be followed, in determining inter se seniority, irrespective of the actual date of appointment, promotion or selection.