2022 (6) TMI 1400 - SC - Indian Laws

Fixation of the seniority of the Munsiffs (Batch of 2003) for promotion to the post of Sub-Judge in the State of Jammu Kashmir (Now Union Territory) - whether the interse seniority of the Munsiffs appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission should be fixed/ determined on the basis of the roster points or in terms of the order of their interse merit at the time of their selection? HELD THAT - The inter se merit list of the selected candidates can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written test, objective test, vivavoce and/or other parameters as may have been prescribed keeping in view the special requirement of service. Similarly, though not concerned in the present case, even in a case of promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, seniority by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection post. If the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority, the comparative merit has to be evaluated in which seniority will be one of the factors only. However, in the case of merit-cum-seniority even a junior most person may steal a march over his seniors and jump the queue for accelerated promotion. The question as to whether the determination of inter se seniority would depend upon the filling up of the vacancies so far as the reserved categories are concerned, having regard to the roster points, in our opinion, is no longer res integra - In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999 (9) TMI 989 - SUPREME COURT , a five Judge Bench of this Court has laid down the law that It deserves to be noticed that the roster points fixed at Level 1 are not intended to determine any seniority at Level 1 between general candidates and the reserved candidates. Thus, the principle of law discernible from all the aforesaid decisions of this Court is that the roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process. It has nothing to do with the interse seniority among those recruited. To put it in other words, the roster points do not determine the seniority of the appointees who gain simultaneous appointments; that is to say, those who are appointed collectively on the same date or are deemed to be appointed on the same date, irrespective when they joined their posts. The position of law as discussed about could be said to be prevailing even while the High Court of Jammu Kashmir decided by a Full Court Resolution to determine the seniority on the basis of roster points. There is no jurisdictional infirmity or any other infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court warranting interference - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of seniority of Munsiffs (Batch of 2003) for promotion to the post of Sub-Judge.
2. Application of roster points versus merit for determining seniority.
3. Validity of the seniority list and promotion orders based on the gradation list.
4. Retrospective application of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005.
5. Impact of previous judicial decisions on the current case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fixation of Seniority of Munsiffs (Batch of 2003) for Promotion to the Post of Sub-Judge:
The case revolves around the seniority determination of Munsiffs from the 2003 batch for their promotion to Sub-Judges in Jammu & Kashmir. The High Court had initially prepared a gradation list using roster points as per Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, which displaced general category respondents by reserved category petitioners.

2. Application of Roster Points versus Merit for Determining Seniority:
The High Court held that seniority should be based on merit determined by the Public Service Commission and not on roster points. The Court cited the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar's case, which declared that seniority should not be fixed in terms of roster points, as this would extend the rule of affirmative action beyond its intended scope.

3. Validity of the Seniority List and Promotion Orders Based on the Gradation List:
The High Court quashed the gradation list dated 01.06.2010 and the consequent promotion orders. It directed the respondent to reframe the seniority list based on merit obtained by the candidates in the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. The Court emphasized that the gradation list and promotion orders made on the basis of the reservation policy were liable to be set aside.

4. Retrospective Application of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005:
The petitioners argued that the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, should not be applied retrospectively to their 2003 appointments. The High Court, however, applied the principles laid down in Bimlesh Tanwar's case, which invalidated the use of roster points for determining seniority, regardless of the retrospective application of the 2005 Rules.

5. Impact of Previous Judicial Decisions on the Current Case:
The Supreme Court referenced several key judgments, including R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, to support the principle that roster points are for ensuring reservation in recruitment and do not determine inter-se seniority. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to base seniority on merit rather than roster points was consistent with established legal principles.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the High Court's decision to fix seniority based on merit determined by the Public Service Commission. The Court found no jurisdictional or other infirmities in the High Court's judgment, thereby upholding the principle that roster points should not be used to determine seniority among appointees.

← Previous Next →