2003 (3) TMI 773 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Criteria for determining inter se seniority among officers of the Haryana Judicial Service.
2. Legality of diverting unfilled reserved vacancies to general category candidates.
3. Determination of seniority based on merit list versus date of joining.
4. Applicability of roster points in determining seniority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Criteria for Determining Inter Se Seniority:
The core question was whether inter se seniority among officers of the Haryana Judicial Service should be based on merit in the merit list or the date of joining. The Supreme Court upheld the practice of determining seniority based on merit, as per the consistent practice followed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Court emphasized that the Rules and long-standing practices of the High Court emphasized merit and excluded the applicability of roster points for determining seniority.

2. Legality of Diverting Unfilled Reserved Vacancies:
The appellant contended that vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, which remained unfilled, could not be diverted to general category candidates. The High Court did not find favor with this contention, and the Supreme Court upheld this view. The Court noted that the vacancies were filled as per the extant rules and the directions of the High Court, which were in line with the observations made in Neelima Shangla vs. State of Haryana.

3. Determination of Seniority Based on Merit List vs. Date of Joining:
The appellant argued that seniority should be determined based on the date of joining rather than the merit list. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming that seniority should be based on the merit list. The Court highlighted that the candidates who were appointed later due to litigation should not lose their seniority as they were unjustly deprived of their right of appointment initially.

4. Applicability of Roster Points in Determining Seniority:
The appellant argued that seniority should be determined according to roster points. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, clarifying that roster points are not intended to determine seniority between general and reserved category candidates. The Court referred to the decision in Ajit Singh & Ors. (II) vs. State of Punjab, which held that roster points are meant for reservation purposes and not for determining seniority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to determine inter se seniority based on merit. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and practices that prioritize merit in determining seniority. The decision reinforced that roster points are not applicable for seniority determination and upheld the legality of appointments made based on the merit list, even if they were delayed due to administrative or legal reasons.