9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1956 - SC - Indian LawsInter se seniority dispute between three streams of Punjab Superior Judicial Service - officers promoted on the basis of merit-cum-seniority under 50% quota (promotees) - direct recruits under 25% quota (direct recruits) - officers promoted on the basis of limited departmental competitive examination under 25% quota (as it then existed) (out of turn promotees) - HELD THAT - The seniority list dated 24.12.2015 is to be set aside. After setting aside the seniority list, two courses are open. Firstly, to remit this matter to the High Court again to re-cast the seniority list as per our direction and secondly, to finalize seniority list in this judgment itself. We choose to adopt the second course for two reasons a) Already period of three years has elapsed when the tentative seniority list was published. Finalisation of seniority as early as possible is essential and necessary for administration of justice. b) There is no dispute regarding inter-se-seniority of the promotees Under Rule 7(3)(a) and issue pertaining to inter-se-seniority of out of turn promotees and direct recruits have already been finalized by us. Only exercise which is to be undertaken is to place officers of three streams in accordance with the roster as indicated in Appendix-B. All appeals are allowed in following manner 1) The Division Bench judgment of the High Court so far as it holds that roster is applicable in the determination of seniority of members of superior judicial service is upheld. 2) The judgment of the Division bench of the High Court holding that fifteen promotees Under Rule 7(3)(a) were beyond the quota and shall take position at the bottom of the seniority list is set aside. 3) The seniority list dated 24.12.2014 is set aside. The list of 35 officers arranged as per Roster as indicated above shall be treated as final Seniority list of the officers recruited in the year 2008.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota, and if their appointment should be treated as ad hoc and placed at the bottom of seniority. 2. Whether appointments to the Superior Judicial Service from all three streams should be made based on the roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007. 3. Whether the determination of inter se seniority of members belonging to all three streams should be based on the roster. 4. How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges absorbed into the regular cadre should be determined. 5. Reliefs to be granted. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota, and if their appointment should be treated as ad hoc and placed at the bottom of seniority. The High Court determined that the cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial Service was 107 as of 10.11.2007. The promotion quota under Rule 7(3)(a) was calculated as 53, but the actual working strength was 58, indicating an excess of 5 officers. The court held that the calculation of the quota should be based on the cadre strength rather than vacancies. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, stating that the quota should be determined on the basis of the cadre strength, not vacancies. The Court found that the promotions of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) were within their quota and not ad hoc, thus they should not be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. Issue 2: Whether appointments to the Superior Judicial Service from all three streams should be made based on the roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007. The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 7(4) and Appendix B should be read in light of the Supreme Court's directions in All India Judges' Association case, which mandated the use of a roster system to minimize disputes regarding seniority. The Court held that the roster system, as outlined in Rule 7(4) and Appendix B, should be applied not only for recruitment but also for determining seniority. Issue 3: Whether the determination of inter se seniority of members belonging to all three streams should be based on the roster. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's view that the roster system should be applied for determining seniority. The Court held that the roster system, which was designed to eliminate disputes regarding seniority, should be applied as per the Rules, 2007. The Court concluded that the seniority of officers from different streams, recruited in the same year, should be determined based on the roster, irrespective of their actual joining dates. Issue 4: How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges absorbed into the regular cadre should be determined. The Supreme Court considered the absorption of Fast Track Court Judges into the regular cadre and held that their seniority should be determined based on the roster system. The Court noted that the Fast Track Court Judges who were absorbed into the regular cadre had undergone a written test and viva-voce, similar to the process for direct recruits. The Court held that these judges should be grouped with direct recruits and their seniority should be determined accordingly. Reliefs: The Supreme Court set aside the seniority list dated 24.12.2015 and directed that the seniority list should be re-cast based on the roster system as per Rule 7(4) and Appendix B. The Court finalized the seniority list in its judgment to avoid further delays, placing officers from all three streams according to the roster. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the roster system should be applied in determining seniority but set aside the decision that the promotees were beyond their quota and should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. The final seniority list, arranged as per the roster, was treated as the final seniority list of officers recruited in 2008. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
