1. Dispute between direct recruits and promotees in U.P. Higher Judicial Service — Quota calculation under U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1246
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KANT TRIPATHI
Versus
State of U. P
Decided On : September 7, 2001
Recruitment quotas must be calculated based on actual existing and predictable vacancies (specifically superannuations), not on total cadre strength. The statutory authority to determine the number of vacancies rests exclusively with the Court, and not with the Selection Committee.
Headnote:(A) Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - Rules 6 and 8 - Calculation of recruitment quotas - Direct recruits and promotees - The quota for various sources of recruitment must be calculated based on the number of vacancies determined under Rule 8 (vacancies existing and likely to occur in the next two years), and not as a percentage of the total permanent strength or cadre strength of the service (Paras 16, 22, 35). The expression "vacancies likely to occur in the next two years" refers exclusively to probable vacancies, such as those arising from superannuation, and cannot include unpredictable occurrences like death, compulsory retirement, removal, or elevation to a higher court (Para 34).
(B) Recruitment Process - Selection Committee vs. Full Court - The determination of the number of officers to be recruited is a statutory obligation of the Court under Rule 8. The Selection Committee's role is limited to scrutinizing applications and assessing merit; it lacks the jurisdiction to determine, enhance, or reduce the number of vacancies already fixed by the Court (Para 23).
(C) Wait-listed candidates - Right to appointment - A candidate on a wait-list possesses no vested right to be appointed unless a selected candidate does not join and the list remains operative. Inclusion in a merit list beyond notified vacancies does not confer an enforceable right to appointment (Para 32).
Facts of the case:
Disputes arose between direct recruits and promotees in the Higher Judicial Service regarding the calculation of quotas across multiple recruitment years. The High Court had determined the number of direct recruits based on a percentage of the total cadre strength rather than actual and anticipated vacancies. Challenges were also raised regarding the Selection Committee increasing the number of recruits beyond the advertised vacancies and the status of wait-listed candidates.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the High Court committed a serious error by applying the quota to the total cadre strength instead of the vacancies determined under Rule 8. Furthermore, the Court held that the Selection Committee could not abdicate the Court's statutory duty to fix the number of vacancies. The use of a "variation clause" in advertisements cannot justify recruiting beyond the statutory vacancy determination process.
Issues: Whether recruitment quotas should be calculated based on the total cadre strength or the specific vacancies determined under Rule 8; whether the Selection Committee can determine the number of vacancies; and what constitutes "vacancies likely to occur" in the context of recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Recruitment quotas must be applied to the pool of existing and predictably occurring vacancies (superannuation) for the relevant period. The statutory authority to determine this number rests solely with the Court. Appointments beyond the quota may be allowed to continue for stability, but seniority must be adjusted based on a correct re-calculation of vacancies.
Result: Appointments already made are not annulled, but the High Court is directed to re-calculate vacancies and adjust seniority for the 1988 and subsequent recruitment years in accordance with the interpreted rules.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- service law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over calculation method for quota ratio between direct recruits and promotees under Rules 6 and 8 of the 1975 Rules. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 25 , 26 )
3. High Court erroneously calculated direct recruit quota as 15% of total cadre strength instead of applying percentage to vacancies under Rule 6. (Para 22 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 34 , 35 )
4. Quota under Rule 6 applies to vacancies determined under Rule 8, not total cadre strength; vacancies likely to occur means only superannuation. (Para 22 , 25 , 34 , 35 )
5. Existing appointments not annulled; High Court directed to recalculate quota for each recruitment year based on actual vacancies and adjust seniority accordingly. (Para 38 )
6. How should the quota for direct recruits be calculated under Rule 6 read with Rule 8 of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975?
The High Court must determine the number of vacancies available for a recruitment year under Rule 8 and then apply the 15% quota under Rule 6 to those vacancies, not to the total cadre strength. (Para 22 , 25 , 34 , 35 )
7. What is the meaning of 'vacancies likely to occur in the next two years' under Rule 8(1) of the Rules?
It refers only to vacancies that will occur due to superannuation, not vacancies arising from death, compulsory retirement, voluntary retirement, removal, dismissal, or elevation to the High Court. (Para 34 )
8. Does a Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16 have jurisdiction to determine or enhance the number of vacancies for direct recruitment?
No. The determination of vacancies is a statutory obligation of the Full Court under Rule 8; the Selection Committee cannot enhance or reduce the number already determined by the Court. (Para 23 )
9. Does a wait-listed candidate have a vested right to appointment against direct recruit vacancies?
No. A wait-listed candidate has no enforceable right to appointment, especially when vacancy determination is erroneous and no such right is conferred by the Recruitment Rules. (Para 32 , 36 )
10. How long does a select list for direct recruitment remain operative under Rule 18?
The select list remains operative until the next recruitment under Rule 8, i.e., until the Court fixes the number of persons to be taken for the next recruitment. (Para 17 , 18 )
Judgment
PATTANAIK, J.
( 1 ) THIS batch of cases deals with the dispute between the direct recruits and the promotees in the cadre of U. P. Higher Judicial Service comprising of posts borne in Class I. U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Proviso to Art. 309, read with Art. 233 of the Constitution by the Governor in supersession of the earlier Recruitment Rules of 1953. The earlier Recruitment Rules of the year 1953 were struck down by this Court in the case of Chandra Mohan v. State of U. P. on a conclusion that the same was violative of Art. 233 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE present Rules govern the conditions of service including recruitment of the members of the service constituting a cadre. The dispute, in fact centers round recruitment made in different recruitment years and is basically one on the calculation made by the High Court to find out the ratio between the direct recruits and promotees in a given year. We , however, do not propose to examine the calculation made by the High Court in each recruitment year, on the other hand, we propose to interpret the relevant provisions of the Rules and decide what should be the correct mode of calculation where after the High court may itself re-calculate and re-adjust the appointments already made or to be made in future.
( 3 ) UNDER the present Recruitment Rules the expression service has been defined in Rule (c) to mean, the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. The strength of the service has been defined in Rule 4 to indicate that it constitutes a single cadre comprising of the posts of District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges. The permanent strength of service was specified in Appendix A in accordance with the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. Rule 5 provides that the recruitment to the service shall be made by direct recruitment and by promotion of confirmed members of U. P. Nyayik Sewa from amongst those members who have put in not less than 7 years to be computed on the 1st day of January of next following year in which notice inviting applications is published, as well as from U. P. Judicial Officers Service. Rule 6 is the Rule providing quota, which is of paramount importance in the case in hand, and as such is quoted hereinbelow in extenso :-6. Quota - Subject to the provisions of Rule 8 , the quota for various source of recruitment shall bei)DIRECT recruitment from the Bar15 Per Centii)U. P. Nyayik Sewa of the vacancies70 Per Centiii)U. P. Judicial Officers Service (Judicial Magistrate)15 Per Centprovided that where the number of vacancies to be filled in by any of these sources in accordance with the quota is in fraction, less than half shall be ignored and the fraction of half or more shall ordinarily be counted as one :provided further that when the strength in the cadre of the Judicial Magistrate gradually gets, depleted or is completely exhausted and suitable candidates are not available in requisite numbers or no candidate remains available at all, the shortfall in the number of vacancies required to be filled from amongst Judicial Magistrates and in the long run all the vacancies, shall be filled by promotion from amongst the members of the Nyayik Sewa and their quota shall, in due course, becomes 85 per cent.
( 4 ) RULE 8 is yet another important provision which requires consideration in the case in hand and the said Rule also is extracted hereinbelow in extenso :-8. Number of appointments to be made : (1) the court, shall from time to time, but not later than three years from the last recruitment, fix the number of officers to be taken at the recruitment keeping in view the vacancies then existing and likely to occur in the next two years. NOTE : The limitation of three years mentioned in this sub-rule shall not apply to the first recruitment held after the enforcement of these rules. 2. If at any selection the number of selected direct recruits av
