2010 (9) TMI 1076 - SC - Indian Laws

What is the scope and interpretation of second proviso to Rule 8(2) of the 1975 rules? Whether the Additional District and Sessions Judges, holding the posts on April 5, 1975, can claim that by operation of the 1974 Rules they stood appointed to the service and as such consumed all the posts which were available on April 5, 1975 or they were only entitled to vacancies under the second proviso to Rule 8(2) of the 1975 rules? Whether the period of continuous officiation in case of a promotee, for determining seniority, is to be counted in terms of First proviso to Rule 26(1)(a) of the 1975 Rules or in accordance with the principle adopted by the High Court. Isn t it the requirement of law that a promotee is entitled to seniority in the service from the date when vacancy in his quota became available? Seniority and appointment in the service being inter- linked a further question which necessarily arises for our consideration is whether Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 rules, which provide appointments to temporary posts in the service from two sources of promotees excluding the direct recruits, can be legally sustained?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service.
2. Interpretation and application of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975, and their amendments.
3. Validity and effect of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 Rules.
4. Calculation of vacancies and quotas for direct recruits and promotees.
5. Implementation of previous Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Dixit, O.P. Garg, and Srikant Tripathi cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter-se Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:
The dispute between promotees and direct recruits regarding their inter-se seniority in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services has a long history, originating from the judgment in P.K. Dixit vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1987). The Supreme Court in P.K. Dixit directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list based on specific guidelines. This led to further litigation, culminating in the judgments in O.P. Garg and Srikant Tripathi cases. The Supreme Court reiterated that the seniority of direct recruits should be determined from the date of their joining the service, while the seniority of promotees should be based on continuous officiation/service from the date when a substantive vacancy in their quota became available.

2. Interpretation and Application of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975:
The recruitment and appointment to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service are governed by the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975, and their amendments. Key rules include Rules 5, 6, 8, 20, 22, and 26. The Supreme Court examined these rules in detail, particularly focusing on the amendments made in 1996. The Court clarified the interpretation of these rules, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the quotas for direct recruits and promotees as specified in the rules.

3. Validity and Effect of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 Rules:
In O.P. Garg, the Supreme Court struck down Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of the 1975 Rules, which confined appointments to temporary posts to promotees, holding that these rules were discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court directed that appointments under Rules 22(1) and 22(2) should be made to both permanent and temporary posts from all three sources (direct recruits, promotees, and judicial magistrates) in accordance with the quota provided under the rules. The appointments already made under Rules 22(3) and 22(4) were, however, protected from invalidation.

4. Calculation of Vacancies and Quotas for Direct Recruits and Promotees:
The Supreme Court addressed the method of calculating vacancies and quotas for direct recruits and promotees. The Court clarified that the quota for direct recruits is 15% of the strength of the service, not merely a ceiling. The High Court was directed to determine the number of vacancies available as on the relevant year of recruitment, allocate the percentage to different sources of recruitment, and ensure that the appointments of direct recruits do not exceed 15% of the total strength of the service. The Court also emphasized that any shortfall in direct recruits should be made up in subsequent recruitments.

5. Implementation of Previous Supreme Court Judgments:
The Supreme Court reviewed the implementation of its previous judgments in P.K. Dixit, O.P. Garg, and Srikant Tripathi cases. The Court found that the High Court's interpretation and application of these judgments were inconsistent in certain aspects. The Court reiterated the need to follow the directions given in these judgments, particularly in calculating the vacancies and quotas for direct recruits and promotees and in determining their inter-se seniority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside certain directions of the Division Bench of the High Court and upholding others. The Court directed the High Court to give effect to the upheld directions without delay and to ensure that none of the appointments already made to the Higher Judicial Service are annulled. The Court emphasized the need to bring a quietus to the long-drawn dispute by implementing the directions in Srikant Tripathi and the upheld directions of the High Court.