2018 Supreme(SC) 966

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Telangana Judges Association & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2015
With
State of Telangana & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Sarasani Satyam & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10170-10173 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18787-18790 of 2016)
Decided On : 03-10-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
The authorities regulating service conditions of judicial officers under Article 309 have to keep in view the opinion of the High Court of the State.
Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 had no application to the Courts subordinate to the State.
Article 317D has no application in respect of the appointment to the posts of District Judges and Judges Subordinate thereto.
Residential requirements is not applicable to appointment of judicial officers. Recruitment to Judicial Service is on all India basis.
Chances of promotion are not conditions of service.
Appeal becoming infructuous needs no consideration.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Articles 309 and 245 – The authorities regulating service conditions of judicial officers under Article 309 have to keep in view the opinion of the High Court of the State – Articles 233 and 234 provide a complete code in the matter to insulate the process form outside legislative interference – Consultation with the High Court is an inevitable essential feature. (Para 33, 34)

       (1979) 2 SCC 34; (1978) 2 SCC 102; (2000) 4 SCC 640 – Relied upon

       (b) Andhra Pradesh Reorgnisation Act, 2014 – Section 77 and 80 r/w Articles 238, 245 and 371D, Constitution of India – Allotment of cadre – Section 77 covers the subordinate judiciary of the State – Final allocation Order has to be issued by the Central Government after due consultation with the High Court. (Para 38, 39, 40)

       (c) Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 – Para 6, 7 and 8 – Para 6 and 7 deal with local cadre and local candidates – Para 8 provide for reservation to such local candidates – Held, the Presidential Order is limited in its application to the civil posts under the State and local bodies – Had no application to the Courts subordinate thereto. (Para 45)

       (d) Constitution of India – Article 317D – Held, has no application in respect of the appointment to the posts of District Judges and Judges Subordinate thereto. (Para 46)

       (1979) 2 SCC 34 – Relied upon

       (e) Service law – Appointment – Judicial officers – Residential requirements – Not applicable – Recruitment to Judicial Service is on all India basis – Already held, prescribing a particular place of practice as a prerequisite for seeking employment into the State Judicial Services as District Munsifs is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and Article 16(2) of the Constitution – Statement of Objects and Reasons, Act 2014. (Para 50, 51)

       (f) Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014 – Sections 77 and 80 – Allocation of state and seniority – Contention that no senior judicial officer not belonging to Telangana be allotted to Telangana rejected – Held High Court has tried to balance rights of judicial officers by recognising seniority the first and nativity the second criteria. (Para 54)

       (g) Service law – Service condition – Chances of promotion are not conditions of service. (Para 54)

       AIR 1966 SC 1547; Mohammad Shujat Ali – Relied upon

       (h) Andhra Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2014 – Sections 77 and 80 – Revised guidelines given by High Court – Held, modified guidelines given by High Court and as accepted by DoPT not suffering from any infirmity – More son when all officers belonging to Telangana have been allotted to Telangana. (Para 58, 59)

       (i) Administration of justice – Appeal becoming infructuous – Need no consideration. (Para 60)

       Facts of the case:

       The bifurcation of lower judiciary by State wise strength of combined State of Andhra Pradesh, consequent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorgnisation Act, 2014 is the issue which has arisen in these two cases.

       An advertisement dated 01.02.2014 for recruitment for 97 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) was published. The preliminary written examination was notified for 27.04.2014. The State of Telangana was created as the 29th State of the Union of India by the Act, 2014 on 01.03.2014. A representation was submitted to stop the recruitment process as the Central Government had announced, 02.06.2014, the date for the formation of Telangana State. The High Court put on hold the selection process till a clarification is obtained from Supreme Court. An application was filed by the High Court in C.A. No.1867 of 2006 on which the Supreme Court on 07.07.2014 passed an order permitting the status quo. Supreme Court passed an order on 20.01.2015 clarifying that the process already initiated for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana by the High Court be proceeded with. The Chief Justice of the High Court had constituted a Committee of Judges, which Committee decided to ask the Judicial Officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh to exercise option with respect to the newly formed States. Writ Petition(C) No. 403 of 2014 was also filed in Supremee Court challenging the proposed action of the High Court calling for the option of Judicial Officers. An application for impleadment by Telangana Judges Association has been allowed in Writ Petition No.403 of 2014.

       The High Court after elaborately considering all the issues dismissed all the writ petitions.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the revised guidelines given by the High Court.

       Result: Writ petition disposed of. Civil appeal becoming infructuous.