2000 (8) TMI 1143 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits in Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
2. Adherence to guidelines and directions from O.P. Singla & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
3. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules, particularly Rules 7, 8, 16, and 17.
4. Validity of the seniority list prepared by the Delhi High Court.
5. Meaning and implications of ad hoc, fortuitous, and stop-gap appointments.
6. Impact of the 1987 amendment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Inter-se Seniority:
The primary issue was whether the guidelines and directions given by the Supreme Court in O.P. Singla & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. were followed in determining the inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The promotees argued that their continuous length of service should be considered for seniority, while the direct recruits contended that the quota system should be adhered to.

2. Adherence to Guidelines from O.P. Singla Case:
The judgment in O.P. Singla's case had provided that the seniority between promotees and direct recruits should be based on continuous length of service, provided the promotees were appointed after due consultation with the High Court and possessed the requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court found that the Delhi High Court did not follow these guidelines correctly. The High Court erroneously categorized certain appointments as ad hoc, fortuitous, or stop-gap, thereby excluding them from consideration for seniority.

3. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules:
The interpretation of Rules 7, 8, 16, and 17 was crucial. The Supreme Court in O.P. Singla's case had held that Rule 8(2) could not be applied due to the breakdown of the quota and rota system. The Court also stated that appointments made under Rules 16 and 17, after due consultation with the High Court and meeting the qualifications under Rule 7, should not be considered ad hoc or fortuitous. The Delhi High Court's interpretation, which relied on the number of posts and the concept of lien, was found to be incorrect.

4. Validity of the Seniority List:
The seniority list prepared by the Delhi High Court was challenged. The Supreme Court found that both the provisional and final seniority lists were flawed as they did not comply with the directions given in O.P. Singla's case. The lists were quashed, and the High Court was directed to re-determine the seniority based on continuous length of service.

5. Meaning and Implications of Ad Hoc, Fortuitous, and Stop-gap Appointments:
The terms ad hoc, fortuitous, and stop-gap were discussed in detail. The Supreme Court clarified that these terms are well-known in service jurisprudence and should be interpreted based on the context and purpose of the appointment. An appointment made with the approval of the High Court and where the appointee possesses the requisite qualifications should not be considered ad hoc, fortuitous, or stop-gap if it continues for a long period.

6. Impact of the 1987 Amendment:
The 1987 amendment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules was noted, but the Court clarified that the present judgment concerned appointments made prior to this amendment. The amendment added an explanation to Rules 16 and 17, making Rules 5 and 7 to 11 applicable to such appointments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Writ Petition No. 490/87, quashing the seniority lists and directing the Delhi High Court to re-determine seniority within six weeks based on continuous length of service. The other writ petitions were dismissed or disposed of accordingly. The Court emphasized that the principles from O.P. Singla's case must be followed, and appointments made under Rules 16 and 17, after due consultation and with the requisite qualifications, should not be considered ad hoc, fortuitous, or stop-gap.