2016 Supreme(SC) 910

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Srikant Roy & Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10874 of 2016 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9883 of 2009) With W.P.(C) Nos. 300 of 2013; 27 & 325 of 2014
Decided On : 16-11-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Candidates eligible only for direct recruitment cannot challenge the selection process for selecting in-service candidates through Limited Competitive Examination.
There is a distinction between post and vacancy.
Select list gets exhausted on appointment of recommended candidates or one year whichever is earlier.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Direct recruitment – No vacancy for direct recruitment as on 30th August 2008 – Rule 5 and 8, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules – Petitioners eligible only for direct recruitment – Have no locus to challenge selection process of 2008. (Para 18)

       (2002) 4 SCC 247 – Relied upon

       (b) Service law – Post and vacancy – Distinction – Requisite posts against the earmarked quota for direct recruitment exhausted by the direct recruits – Any vacancy occurring will not be open to direct recruitment – Selection process commenced for recruitment by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination – Candidates eligible for direct recruitment cannot challenge the selection process – Number of posts comprise the cadre and constituting the cadre – Right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the given cadre – Percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the vacancy that would occur. (Para 19)

       (c) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules – Rule 21 and 22 – Selection – Select list gets exhausted on appointment of recommended candidates or one year whichever is earlier – Instantly, all 8 posts filled by candidate in order of merit – Appellants figuring at serial 9 downwards in the merit list have no right to appointment – On exhaustion of posts there is no provision to keep the select list live for one year or to maintain a wait list. (Para 20)

       (2010) 2 SCC 637 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) had challenged the selection process for filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judges through Limited Competitive Examination scheduled on 31st August 2008; and also 18 posts of Additional District Judges from the promotee officers on the basis of merit-cum-seniority scheduled on 23rd August 2008.

       The writ petitioners were appointed purely against temporary and ex-cadre posts on ad-hoc basis, as Presiding Officer, Fast Track Courts in the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year 2002. According to the said writ petitioners, the impugned selection process was improper and not in conformity with the mandate of the amended Rules requiring ratio of 50:25:25 -by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing of a suitability test; by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the basis of merit through a Limited Competitive Examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years service; and by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of written test and viva-voce conducted by the High Court, respectively. The main contention of the said writ petitioners was that the High Court was erroneously linking the ratio of posts to fill up the vacancies by giving retrospective effect to the amended Rules, which has come into force w.e.f. 20th August 2004. The challenge before the High Court in the writ petition was limited to the quota assigned for the Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the (Subordinate Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division) scheduled to be held on 31st August 2008. The High Court has noted that the challenge is only to the extent of 42 posts of Additional District Judges which had to be filled up by following the roster system in the ratio of 25:25. Those posts were required to be bifurcated equally between the promotees from the rank of Subordinate Judges by conducting Limited Competitive Examination and direct recruits from the Bar in the ratio of 25:25. The High Court upheld the plea of the said writ petitioners and issued directions to the High Court to fill up the vacancies, as directed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Selection process of 2008 which has been completed pursuant to the liberty given by this Court by way of interim order is proper and has become final.

       Result: Appeal allowed.