Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Further case of this petitioner is that the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad issued provisional seniority list of the District Judges, appointed pursuant to the notification, on 29.03.2016 inviting the objections from them. In the said provisional seniority list, the petitioner figured at Roster Point No.372 below to Sri Veerapu Nageswara Rao and above to Sri G. Vallabha Naidu/6th respondent, who was a candidate appointed by recruitment by transfer among the Senior Civil Judges under 65% quota. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 04.02.2017 finalized the inter se seniority among the District Judges who were appointed (1) By direct recruitment (25%), (2) By transfer strictly on the basis of merit through a limited Departmental Competitive Examination (Accelerated recruitment by RNT, J & MRK, J transfer 10%), and (3) By recruitment by transfer among the Senior Civil Judges (65%) from the year 2010 as per 40 roster point prescribed in Schedule-A of Rule 13 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007 ( in short 'the Rules 2007'). In the said final seniority list, the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.2707 of 2022 was shown at roster point No.372 above to the respondents 5 to 17 of the said writ petition. The said seniority list dated 04.02.2017, the petitioner's case is, was acted upon by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the promotions were effected basing on the said seniority list dated 04.02.2017.

11. The further case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent-High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued Order in ROC No.424/2021-B.Spl dated 07.09.2021 for fixing up of the common seniority among the District Judges who were appointed from the years 2010 to 2019 and invited objections. The petitioner submitted that his name figured at roster point No.372 and the names of respondents No.5 to 17 of W.P.No.2707 of 2022 were shown above to him at roster points 287 to 320. The petitioner filed objections to the provisional seniority list on 13.09.2021, inter alia submitting that the decision relied in K. Megha Chandra Singh (supra) by the 4th respondent/High Court of Andhra Pradesh for fixing the seniority was only prospective and the inter se seniority already fixed was protected by the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The 4th respondent/High Court of Andhra Pradesh further by Order ROC No.424/2021-B.Spl dated 05.01.2022 fixed the final common seniority list in RNT, J & MRK, J respect of the District Judges in which the name of the petitioner was at roster point No.142, below to the respondents 5 to 17.

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