IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:
P.S. Gopinathan — Appellant
Vs.
State of Kerala & Ors. — Respondents
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. ……….OF 2008
[arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18307 of 2007]
Decided on : 9th May, 2008
Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 - Rule 2(b) - Article 233(1) - Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 - Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961 - Post of Munsif - Civil Judicial Service - Appointment and promotions as two separate wings - Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service came into being as a result of orders issued under G.O Home and with that subordinate judiciary was also bifurcated for first time into Civil Wing and Criminal Wing - Higher Judicial Service all along constituted one separate Service to which after implementation of G.O only Civil Judicial Service Officers are eligible to be considered – Thus there was subordinate Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service - Promotion to Higher Judicial Service was available from Kerala Civil Judicial Service only - Held, In view of fact that Governor issued an order even when order of was in existence it is apparent that appointing authority has also treated first order as an order of appointment on temporary basis - It is therefore apparent from the second appointment order that appointing authority as well as posting authority have all along treated appellant as a temporary District Judge but appellant did not object on both occasions when he joined on he being treated as temporary District Judge - Act and action of appellant in accepting his appointment as temporary one amounts to his assent to temporary appointment and the appellant throughout till he raised an objection on has slept on his right of being appointed permanently on post of District & Sessions Judge - By his conduct at time of issuance of order by the High Court on - Appeal is Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was directly recruited to the post of Munsiff and was later promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge. Thereafter, the appellant was promoted to the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, whereas the respondents 3 to 5 were directly recruited to the Higher Judicial Service.
3. The subordinate judiciary in the State of Kerala consisting of District Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Subordinate Judges, Munsiffs, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, udicial Magistrates
2 of the Second Class, was functioning in the matter of appointment and promotions as two separate wings, (1) consisting of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service and the Kerala Civil Judicial Service and (2) the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service. The Higher Judicial Service consisted of District Judges. The Kerala Civil Judicial Service consisted of Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs, whereas the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service consisted of Chief Judicial Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class. The Civil Judicial Service and the Criminal Judicial Service came into being as a result of the orders issued under G.O.(Ms) 24/73/Home dated 12.2.1973 and with that the subordinate judiciary was also bifurcated for the first time into Civil Wing and Criminal Wing. The Higher Judicial Service all along constituted one separate Service to which after the implementation of the G.O. dated 12.2.1973, only the Civil Judicial Service Officers are eligible to be considered. Thus, there was subordinate Civil Judicial Service and the Criminal Judicial Service. Promotion to the Higher Judicial Service was available from the Kerala Civil Judicial Service only.
4. The Higher Judicial Service was constituted under the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules published on 18.7.1961. It
3 consisted of two categories : Category 1 - Selection Grade District & Sessions Judge and Category 2 : District & Sessions Judge (including Additional District & Sessions Judge). Appointment to Category 2 was to be made by transfer (promotion) from the category of Civil Judicial Service or by direct recruitment from the Bar. The number of posts to be filled up by direct recruitment is 1/3rd of the permanent posts in Categories (1) and (2) taken together. While under the said Rules, a select list of subordinate Judges (Civil category) was prepared on 8.1.1991 and approved by the Administrative Committee of the High Court, was also approved by the Full Court on 11.1.1991. The Government also approved the select list of Subordinate Judges by its order dated 19.11.1991 for appointment as District & Sessions Judges. The appellant was ranked No. 2 in the said list. A letter dated 10.12.1991 was addressed by the Registrar, High Court, to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government in Home Department, wherein it was stated that the sanction had been accorded for the establishment of three Special Courts at Thiruvananthapuram for the trial of mark list cases in the light of the Supreme Court direction dated 20.8.1991; the Government had also sanctioned three posts of District Judges; as per the Government
4 Order, the Government had approved 11 Sub-Judges for appointment as District Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service and in order to provide three District Judges in the new Special Courts to be established at Thiruvananthapuram, the actual appointment as District Judges of the following three officers was considered necessary to be made:(i) P.S. Gopinathan; (ii) K.S. Gopinathan Pillai; and (iii) M.V. Viswanathan; and, therefore, the Government orders and notifications appointing the above three officers as a panel of District Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service may be issued immediately.
5. In place of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service and the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service, a common Service was brought into force by the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 published in
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.