Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) By Petitioners' Counsels:

22. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's objections was unsustainable. It was contrary to Rule 13 (a) of the Rules 2007. They submitted that the seniority of the District Judge has to be determined as per the roster prescribed in the Schedule-A, according to which every 2nd, 12th, 22nd and 32nd posts were meant for Accelerated recruitment by transfer and considering the same, in 40 point roster the final seniority list dated 04.02.2017 was prepared by the High Court itself at Hyderabad.

35. Recruitment by transfer

36. Recruitment by transfer

37. Direct Recruitment

38. Accelerated recruitment by transfer

39. Recruitment by transfer

40. Recruitment by transfer

37. A perusal of the Rules 2007, in particular Rule 13 (a), dealing with seniority of the District Judges mentions that the seniority of the persons appointed to the category of District Judges by Direct Recruitment as well as Recruitment by Transfer shall be fixed as per 40 point roster prescribed in Schedule-A. Schedule-A has already been reproduced, under which in the first 40 point, Points 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 and 38 are the roster points for the Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer. There is no dispute on that aspect.

47. Learned standing counsel for the High Court placed reliance in the judgment of this Court delivered by the erstwhile common High Court in B. S. Jag Jeevan Kumar (supra).

RNT, J & MRK, J

48. In B. S. Jag Jeevan Kumar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dealt with the contentions as raised therein with respect to the Rule 13 (a) of the Rules 2007 which requires seniority to be maintained in accordance with 40 point roster and in which it was submitted that in view of that Rule and 40 point roster, it was not open to the Registry of the High Court to tamper with the 40 point roster by introducing the concept of year of recruitment. In the said case, in the seniority list impugned therein, the Registry included the names of all persons appointed in the year 2010 as against the roster point which could be fitted. After indicating the seniority of 38 persons recruited in the year 2010, the last of the persons in the said seniority list was shown as Serial No.162. The Registry went to the next portion of the seniority list where all persons recruited in the year 2012 were accommodated from Serial No.163 onwards up to serial No.225. The petitioner therein was promoted under 65% quota in the year 2012 and was accommodated at serial No.163, which was virtually roster point No.3 in the 5 th cycle. The contention raised by the 4th petitioner therein was that instead of accommodating the petitioner at Serial No.163 relating to the year 2012, his name ought to have been included at Serial No.3 in the first cycle. The contention was that irrespective of the year in which the person was recruited to the post of District Judge, he should be accommodated against the roster point reserved for the method of recruitment through which he got appointed. The said contention was negatived by the High Court. One of the reasons for such negation, given was that the persons recruited by three different methods RNT, J & MRK, J of recruitment ought to be accommodated in 40 point roster, if irrespective of the year of recruitment, then the person may gain seniority over and above another person who was appointed 2 years earlier and on which date the former was not even born in the service. This Court reiterated that it is well settled that no person can claim seniority with effect from a date on which he was not even born in the service, observing further that if the contention of the petitioner's counsel therein was accepted and the petitioner was placed at serial No.3 against roster point No.3 in the first cycle of the roster, then the petitioner will be gaining seniority over persons appointed in the year 2010, despite the fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2012.

49. In B. S. Jag Jeevan Kumar (supra) the erstwhile High Court explained that the only manner in which the ratio laid down in para-29 of All India Judges' Association v Union of India6 case and Rule 13 (a) of the Special Rules was to be understood was that, as and when a recruitment takes place, persons selected under a particular stream in that selection will be accommodated against the roster points earmarked for that particular stream in the 40 point roster. If all the 3 methods of recruitment take place almost simultaneously and if there are 40 vacancies, all roster points from point No.1 to 40 can get filled up. If the total number of persons appointed at a particular point of time from all the 3 different streams is greater than 40, then the Registry will have to fill up the first 40 roster points and complete the first cycle. Thereafter, the second cycle of the 40 point roster has to be commenced and the person at roster point No.1 in the second cycle will be at serial No.41. (1992) 1 SCC 119 RNT, J & MRK, J