Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY C.J.I. AND K.K. MATHEW, J.
G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi, Appellant
Versus
Lt. Governor, Delhi and other Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 777 of 1973, d/- 3-9-1974.
Delhi Higher Judicial Service - Fundamental Rule 9 (22) - Permanent post - Notification - Challenged - Appellant and respondents were recruited to Delhi Higher Judicial Service in accordance with recognisation of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules hereinafter referred to as Delhi Rules - Respondent was appointed as a Subordinate Judge on 27 October, 1948 in former Pepsu State - Respondents and Jain and appellant were selected and appointed as Subordinate Judges in the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in Punjab State on result of competitive examination - Respondents and Jain were appointed as Subordinate Judges on 4 August, 1950 and appellant was appointed on 7 August, 1950 - Held, Length of service rendered by them as Additional District and Sessions Judges is criterion to fix seniority - Word "cadre includes both permanent and temporary posts - To confine cadre to permanent posts under Delhi Rules would be to render Rules totally unworkable and impracticable because at time of initial recruitment persons came on deputation from States mostly in their temporary capacity as Additional District and Sessions Judges - Respondents and appellant were all functioning as Additional District Judges on deputation at Delhi at the time of the initial constitution of Delhi Higher Judicial Service - Respondents were appointed prior to appellant as Additional district and Sessions Judge - Respondents rendered longer service as Additional district and Sessions Judge vis-a-vis appellant - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
RAY, C. J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 21 August, 1972 of the Delhi High Court Reported in (1973) 1 Service Law Report 54.
2. The appellants challenged the notification dated 15 May, 1971 determining the respondents K. S. Sidhu, O.N. Vohra and J. D. Jain to be senior to the appellant in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
3. The appellant and the respondents were recruited to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in accordance with the recognisation of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Delhi Rules.
4. The respondent Sidhu was appointed as a Subordinate Judge on 27 October, 1948 in the former Pepsu State. The respondents Vohra and Jain and the appellant were selected and appointed as Subordinate Judges in the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in the Punjab State on the result of the competitive examination. The respondents Vohra and Jain were appointed as Subordinate Judges on 4 August, 1950 and the appellant was appointed on 7 August, 1950.
5. The respondent Sidhu was appointed as an officiating or temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15 January, 1966 in the State of "Punjab".
6. The respondent Jain was appointed as Senior Subordinate Judge in Delhi on 12 October, 1966. The appellant was also made first the Additional Senor Subordinate Judge on 12 October, 1966.
7. The Delhi High Court was established on 31 October, 1966.
8. On 1 November, 1966 the State of Punjab and reorganised. Two different States of Punjab and Haryana were formed.
9. The Central Government in exercise of its power under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 allocated the respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain to Punjab and the appellants to the State of Haryana with effect from 1 November, 1966.
10. On or about 2/3 November, 1966 a select list of officers to be recruited to the Delhi Judicial Service showing the order of seniority was prepared.
11. The respondent Vohra was appointed on 17 March, 1967 as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi. On 24 April, 1967 the respondent Vohra was promoted and appointed as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi against a permanent post.
12. The respondent Sidhu was transferred to Delhi and appointed on 1 May, 1967 as Additional District and Sessions Judge on deputation. He bad already been appointed as officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15 January, 1966 in Punjab.
13. The respondent Jain was given promotion on 23 June, 1967 as Additional District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Punjab in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service while he was still on deputation. On 11 August 1967 the respondent Jain was promoted and appointed as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi against one of the temporary posts.
14. On 28 July, 1967 the appellant was given promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana while he was still working on deputation as Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi.
15. On 27 August, 1970 the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 were promulgated.
16. On 2 October, 1970 the appellant was confirmed as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana whilst he was still functioning as Additional District and Sessions Judge on deputation.
17. On 22 February, 1971 the respondent Sidhu was confirmed as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Punjab whilst he was still functioning in Delhi as Additional District and Sessions Judge on deputation.
18. On 15 May, 1971 the Administrator of Delhi issued a Gazette Notification appointing substantively the respondents and the appellant to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service on its initial constitution. The respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain and the appellant were shown one after another in the order of seniority.
19. On 17 May, 1971 the appellant and the respondents assumed charge as Additional District and Sessions Judges Delhi as members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
20. On 1 September, 1971
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
