1984 (8) TMI 349 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits.
2. Interpretation of the proviso to Rule 7.
3. Validity of Rule 8(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.
4. Constitutionality of the seniority list.
5. Impact of Rules 16 and 17 on the quota rule.
6. Equitable determination of seniority.

Summary:

1. Inter-se Seniority between Promotees and Direct Recruits:
The Supreme Court addressed the contentious issue of seniority between promotees and direct recruits within the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The petitioners, promotee Additional District and Sessions Judges, contended that seniority should be based on the dates of continuous officiation and not on the date of direct recruitment. They argued that the current system, which allows direct recruits to rank higher despite being appointed later, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

2. Interpretation of the Proviso to Rule 7:
The Court examined whether the proviso to Rule 7 prescribes a quota or merely a ceiling for direct recruits. The proviso states, "not more than 1/3rd of the substantive posts in the Service shall be held by direct recruits." The Court concluded that this language imposes a ceiling rather than establishing a quota, as it does not explicitly mandate that 1/3rd of the posts must be filled by direct recruits.

3. Validity of Rule 8(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970:
Rule 8(2) states that seniority between direct recruits and promotees shall be determined by the rotation of vacancies based on quotas reserved by Rule 7. The Court found that Rule 8(2) assumes a quota that does not exist in Rule 7. Therefore, Rule 8(2) should be read to apply only to simultaneous appointments or initial recruitment, avoiding any interpretation that would lead to injustice.

4. Constitutionality of the Seniority List:
The Court held that the seniority list, which was based on the quota and rota rule, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The list unjustly placed direct recruits above promotees who had been officiating for years. The Court quashed the seniority list and directed the preparation of a new list based on continuous officiation.

5. Impact of Rules 16 and 17 on the Quota Rule:
Rules 16 and 17 allow for the creation of temporary posts and temporary appointments to substantive vacancies, respectively. The Court noted that these rules permit appointments from amongst promotees only, thereby suspending the quota rule when such appointments are made. Consequently, the quota and rota rule cannot apply in these situations.

6. Equitable Determination of Seniority:
The Court emphasized that promotees appointed under Rules 16 and 17 should be considered for seniority along with direct recruits if they are appointed in consultation with the High Court and have completed ten years of service in the Delhi Judicial Service. The seniority should be determined based on the dates of continuous officiation in non-fortuitous vacancies.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled that the proviso to Rule 7 and Rule 8(2) do not inherently suffer from constitutional infirmity but must be interpreted to avoid injustice. The seniority list was quashed, and a new list was ordered to be prepared based on continuous officiation. The judgment highlighted the need for careful implementation of rules to maintain equity and avoid disparities in judicial service appointments. The petitions were partly allowed, with no order as to costs.