2008 Supreme(SC) 1508

2008(7) Supreme 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., P. Sathasivam and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
B.S. Mathur & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 477 of 2007
Decided on : 15-10-08

IMPORTANT POINT
Direct recruits can not claim seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, the seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous length of service.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 – Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 8(2) read with Rule 7 – Inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and the promotee officers – Writ petitions filed by directly recruited Additional District and Sessions Judges appointed to Delhi Higher Judicial Service – On 14.8.2002, the Delhi High Court circulated tentative seniority list of the officers of DHJS and invited objections from concerned officers – Thereafter High Court appointed a Committee of five Hon’ble Judges to decide the issue of seniority of officers of DHJS appointed after 1991 – The writ petitioners as well as the promotee officers of DHJS submitted their objections to the draft seniority list – After considering arguments raised by both parties, four Hon’ble Judges of the Committee submitted a report being of the majority view holding that Rota Quota Rules for determining seniority was workable only if simultaneous recruitment was resorted to failing which they ‘break down’ – They took the view that no simultaneous recruitment had taken place as such and there was need for search for an equitable and reasonable principle and in their opinion 1986 memorandum fitted the description – As per majority report, the inter se seniority of DHJS after Shri K.C. Lohia should be settled as per O.M. dated 3.7.1986 of DOPT – The dissenting Judge took the view that Rota and Quota had broken down as the appointments from two sources had taken place after lot of delay and that principle of continuous length of service should be applied for inter se seniority of the officers of DHJS – Full Court however accepted the majority view expressed by Committee – Writ petitions thereagainst – Held High Court while fixing seniority of officers upto Shri K.C. Lohia including those who were appointed after amendment of the Rules and whose seniority was not determined in Rudra Kumar Sain’s case, did not apply O.M. dated 3.7.1986 or the principles contained therein – Their seniority was fixed essentially on the basis of “length of service”- There was no good reason for the High Court to discard the principle of “continuous length of service”, and apply the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 for purpose of fixing seniority of officers appointed after appointment of Shri K.C. Lohia – Rule 8(2) also could not be applied on account of gross inequity and injustice which its application was bound to produce – Relying upon decision in case of Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs.State of J & K, held that direct recruits could not claim seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, the seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous length of service - If the seniority is fixed in this manner, it would not cause any injustice either to promotees or to direct recruits- Rota Quota had remained broken down right from the inception of service till now-There is absolutely no change in the factual position relating to breakdown of Rota Quota even after the decision of this Court in O.P. Singla and Rudra Kumar Sain’s cases – There was no reason to depart from the said principle and take a shelter under the O.M. of DOPT dated 3.7.1986 for determining the inter se seniority of officers of DHJS – Writ petitions allowed setting aside inter se seniority list of DHJS as suggested by majority view and consequential order of the High Court. (Paras 19 to 29)

        (2000) 7 SCC 561 – Relied upon.

        Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 8(2) read with Rule 7 – Inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and the promotee officers – Principle of Rota Quota – Applicability of – Perusal of Seniority List drawn by application of principle of Rota Quota as laid down in Rule 8(2) read with Rule 7 of DHJS Rules shows that in case the principle of Rota Quota is followed, then it would cause a serious injustice to the promotee officers inasmuch as, direct recruits who had not yet entered the service would rank senior to the promotee officers promoted in their quota way back on 16.8.2000 – If this was allowed to happen, this would not only be unreasonable but create a great heart-burning amongst the officers appointed from the two sources – Hence, held that principle of Rota Quota contained in the statutory Rule 8 (2) read with Rule 7 of DHJS Rules, does not properly address the problem of resolving inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and the promotee officers. (Para 19)

        Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 8(2) read with Rule 7 – Inter se seniority dispute between direct recruits and the promotee officers – Seniority list prepared on the basis of the principle of “continuous length of service” – Ever since inception of the service till the seniority up to Mr. K.C. Lohia was finally decided, High Court had continuously followed principle of “continuous length of service” as directed to be applied to the officers of DHJS by this Court in O.P. Singla and Rudra Kumar Sain’s cases -When O.P. Singla and Rudra Kumar Sain’s cases were decided by this Court, this Court had noticed breakdown of Rota Quota in the service and it was for that reason, directions were given for determining the inter se seniority by applying the principle of continuous length of service – Perusal of the seniority list prepared on the basis of the principle of “continuous length of service”clearly demonstrates that in case the seniority of the officers of DHJS is fixed by reference to their date of appointment, then nobody would suffer any injustice – Each and every officer would get due weightage of the service rendered by him or her in the cadre of DHJS – If inter se seniority is finally decided by applying the principle of “continuous length of service”, it may bring an end to litigation between the officers of the two groups-Hence held that principle of “continuous length of service” ought to be applied for determining inter se seniority of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service appointed up to the year 2006 – In case of officers appointed on the same date, whether direct appointees or promotees, the seniority should be fixed on the principles as stated in O.M.dated 3.7.1986 since it cannot be determined on the basis of length of service alone in case of appointment from two different sources on the same date. (Paras 23 to 28)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present writ petitions, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, were filed by the directly recruited Additional District and Sessions Judges who were appointed to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service praying for an order quashing the Resolution dated 18.05.2007 of the Full Court of the High Court of Delhi approving the majority report of the Administrative Committee determining the seniority of the petitioners in terms of O.M.dated 03.07.1986 and also quashing the final seniority list of the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Writ Petitioners also prayed for appropriate direction to respondent Nos. 1-4 to determine the seniority of the petitioners in terms of Rule 8(2) read with Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held High Court while fixing seniority of officers upto Shri K.C. Lohia including those who were appointed after amendment of the Rules and whose seniority was not determined in Rudra Kumar Sain’s case, did not apply O.M. dated 3.7.1986 or the principles contained therein. Their seniority was fixed essentially on the basis of “length of service”. There was no good reason for the High Court to discard the principle of “continuous length of service”, and apply the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 for purpose of fixing seniority of officers appointed after appointment of Shri K.C. Lohia. Rule 8(2) also could not be applied on account of gross inequity and injustice which its application was bound to produce.Relying upon decision in case of Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs.State of J & K, held that direct recruits could not claim seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, the seniority should be determined on the basis of continuous length of service . If the seniority is fixed in this manner, it would not cause any injustice either to promotees or to direct recruits.Rota Quota had remained broken down right from the inception of service till now. There is absolutely no change in the factual position relating to breakdown of Rota Quota even after the decision of this Court in O.P. Singla and Rudra Kumar Sain’s cases. There is no reason to depart from the said principle and take a shelter under the O.M. of DOPT dated 3.7.1986 for determining the inter se seniority of officers of DHJS. Writ petitions allowed setting aside inter se seniority list of DHJS as suggested by majority view and consequential order of the High Court.

       Result : Writ petitions allowed.