1997(3) Supreme 468
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Suhas C. Sen and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
S. Jamaldeen & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
High Court of Madras & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2106-2109 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11111-11114 of 1995)
With
Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1997 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6584 of 1997 (CC No. 3647)
Decided on 20-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Dr. Shankar Ghosh and N.B. Shetye, Sr. Advs., A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji, Advocates.
For the Appellant in I.A. No. 1 : S. Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, P.V. Yogeswaran and R.N. Keswani, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate (K.M.K. Nair) Advocate (NP) Dr. A.F. Julain, and M.A. Chinnasamy, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-Leave granted.
2. The Tamil Nadu State subordinate judiciary originally consisted of two separate services, Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service and Tamil Nadu Judicial Service. The Magisterial Service consisted of two categories. Subordinate Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial Second Class Magistrates) and Additional First Class Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial First Class Magistrates).
3. The Judicial Service also consisted of two categories, the Subordinate Judge and below the post of Subordinate Judge was the post of District Munsif.
4. The recruitment and promotions to the posts in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was governed by Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ) which came into force on 1.1.1955. Under these rules, recruitment to the post of Subordinate Judge was only by promotion from the post of District Munsif. The appointments to the post of District Munsif was by direct recruitment from the bar or by transfer from various posts in the State and Subordinate Services. There were as many as nine categories of posts which formed the feeder cadre for transfer to the post of District Munsif. Class 6 of the feeder cadre comprised of Judicial Second Class Magistrates and Judicial First Class Magistrates in the Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service.
5. In the Magisterial Service, appointment to the post of Judicial First Class Magistrates, was by promotion from the post of Judicial Second Class Magistrates or by transfer of service from Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and appointment to the post of Judicial Second Class Magistrate was by direct recruitment from the bar and by transfer from various departments of the Government in the ratio of 6:4.
6. In the Judicial Service, the recruitment could be made only through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The names recommended by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1965 were exhausted in the year 1967. Thereafter the vacancies which arose were filled up by making temporary appointments by transfer from the eligible services and by direct recruitment from the bar on the recommendation of the High Court. This inflow of temporary appointments on transfer was one of the reasons for the backlog in fixing seniority, regularisation and consequent promotions of the respective officers. During the years 1960-74, nearly 110 Judicial Second Class Magistrates were appointed on transfer on purely temporary basis. Out of the said 110 Judicial Second Class Magistrates, only about 37 were regularised by G.O. No. 1924, Home Department dated 22.10.1975. In the year, 1982 about 80 Judicial Second Class Magistrates were appointed temporarily by direct recruitment from among the bar.
7. These facts have been recorded in the judgment under appeal and are not in dispute.
8. The Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a Writ Petition No. 11604/81 and on 20.1.1982 orders of injunction were passed restraining the Government from regularising the services of all the temporary Second Class Magistrates. This had the effect of stalling the process of regularisation of temporary judicial officers. Two more writ petitions were filed in the High Court (W.P. Nos. 3053 and 3294/1984). In these writ petitions, a direction was sought for filling up of all the vacancies in the posts of Magistrates and District Munsifs only in accordance with the Rules.
9. By an order dated 10.5.85, these writ petitions were allowed and directions were issued to regularise the appointments through the process of selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission within four months and to put an end to the temporary arrangement.
10. While these proceedings were going on in the Madras High Court, petitions were made in this Court in which this Court ordered transfer of proceedings pending in the Madras High Court and both the writ petitions filed in the Madras High Court and the writ appeals were disposed of by an order d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.