2002 (2) TMI 1328 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority of District Judges appointed by nomination from the Bar versus those promoted from the rank of Additional District Judge.
2. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 versus High Court under Article 226.
3. Interpretation of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 and its amendments in 1987 and 1992.
4. Determination of seniority for direct recruit District Judges and promotee District Judges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inter se Seniority of District Judges:
The primary issue is the determination of seniority between District Judges appointed by nomination from the Bar and those promoted from the rank of Additional District Judge. The High Court concluded that nominated District Judges would reckon their seniority from the date of appointment, while promotee District Judges would reckon their seniority from the date of their promotion. This decision was challenged by the promotee District Judges, leading to the present petition.

2. Jurisdictional Challenge:
A preliminary objection was raised that the dispute, being one of inter se seniority within a cadre, should be addressed under Article 226 in the High Court rather than under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, decided to entertain the petition under Article 32 since it had already issued a rule and the dispute centered around the interpretation of relevant rules without any disputed facts.

3. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules:
The service conditions are governed by the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956, amended in 1987 and 1992. The rules indicate two grades of District Judges and methods of recruitment, including promotion from Additional District Judges and nomination from the Bar. The amendments introduced a requirement for direct recruits to serve as Additional District Judges on probation before being appointed as District Judges.

4. Determination of Seniority:
The core of the dispute lies in Rule 5(2)(ii) and Rule 5(2)(iii)(a) of the 1992 amended rules. The rules state that direct recruits must first serve as Additional District Judges on probation for two years. The Supreme Court held that the seniority of direct recruit District Judges should be reckoned from the date they are appointed to work as District Judges after completing their probation, not from the initial appointment as Additional District Judges. Conversely, promotee District Judges would reckon their seniority from the date of their promotion to District Judge.

The Court found the High Court's administrative decision erroneous and struck it down. It directed that the appropriate amendments to Rule 5(2) be made to clarify the seniority rules and ensure they are workable.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, establishing that the seniority of promotee District Judges would be from the date of their promotion, while for direct recruit District Judges, it would be from the date they start working as District Judges after completing their probation. The Court also directed necessary amendments to the recruitment rules to eliminate existing anomalies.