1980 (11) TMI 173 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rules governing seniority between direct recruits and promotees in Superior Judicial Services of Punjab and Haryana.
2. Control over district and subordinate courts by the High Court versus the Governor's power to make rules under Article 309.
3. Application of the rule of quota and rotation at the time of confirmation.
4. Validity of retrospective amendments to service rules.
5. Determination of seniority and confirmation dates for judicial officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:
The judgment addresses the grievances of promotees who argue that their seniority is unjustly determined by the date of confirmation rather than continuous service. The promotees contend that despite vacancies and satisfactory performance, their confirmation is delayed to favor direct recruits. The court examined the relevant rules, particularly Rule 12, which originally determined seniority by the date of confirmation but was later amended in Punjab to consider continuous service.

2. Control by High Court vs. Governor's Power Under Article 309:
The court analyzed the constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 235 and 309. It concluded that while the High Court has control over district and subordinate courts, the Governor has the legislative power to frame rules regarding the conditions of service, including seniority. This power is subject to the Constitution and does not infringe on judicial independence.

3. Application of Quota and Rotation Rules:
The court examined whether the rule of quota (2/3 promotees and 1/3 direct recruits) should be applied at the time of confirmation. It concluded that the quota rule applies only at the stage of initial recruitment and not at the time of confirmation. The court found that the High Court's method of rotating confirmations between promotees and direct recruits was unjustified and contrary to the rules.

4. Retrospective Amendments:
The judgment scrutinized the retrospective amendments to service rules in Punjab and Haryana. It found that the amendments lacked a reasonable nexus to their retrospective dates, particularly criticizing the Haryana amendments as targeting specific individuals. The court held that retrospective amendments should not unsettle settled seniority and create discontentment among judicial officers.

5. Determination of Seniority and Confirmation Dates:
The court directed that seniority should be determined based on the rules in force at the time of appointment or promotion. For Punjab, seniority should be based on continuous service for appointments after December 31, 1976, and by the date of confirmation for earlier appointments. In Haryana, seniority should be determined by the date of confirmation without applying the rule of rotation.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions in part, quashing the High Court's orders that applied the rule of rotation at the time of confirmation. It directed the High Court to revise the dates of confirmation and seniority of judicial officers in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment. The court emphasized the need for uniform rules and consultation with the High Court before amending service rules to avoid litigation and ensure judicial independence.