1. Bifurcation of subordinate judiciary following the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 — Dispute over guidelines for allocating judicial officers between successor states. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek nativity-based allocation to redress historic discrimination — Respondents assert High Court's exclusive control under Article 235 and the primacy of seniority. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. High Court exercises exclusive control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235 — Article 371D does not apply to judicial services — Nativity cannot be the sole allocation basis. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
4. Control over subordinate judiciary under Article 235 is exclusive; allocation guidelines must balance seniority and option rights, as nativity is not a valid sole criterion. (Para 32 , 40 , 51 , 54 )
5. Modified guidelines for allocation approved — Respondents directed to finalize options and complete allocation within two months — Civil appeals dismissed as infructuous. (Para 59 , 60 )
6. Does Article 371D apply to the allocation of judicial officers during state reorganization?
No. Article 371D, which provides for local cadres and domicile-based opportunities in public employment, does not apply to the appointment or allocation of District Judges and subordinate judicial officers to preserve the constitutional scheme of judicial independence. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 )
7. Who has the authority to determine guidelines for the allocation of subordinate judicial officers during state reorganization?
While the Central Government issues the final allocation order under Section 77 of the Reorganisation Act, the High Court exercises exclusive control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235, and its views on guidelines must be given due weight. (Para 32 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
8. Can nativity or residence be the sole basis for allocating judicial officers to a successor state?
No. Since recruitment to the judicial service is on an all-India basis and no parliamentary law mandates residence as an eligibility criterion, nativity cannot be the sole basis for state allocation. (Para 50 , 51 )
9. How should the right of option be balanced with seniority in judicial officer allocation?
Seniority is a valuable service right. Guidelines that prioritize those who have opted and are senior, followed by those opting for their home district, are considered fair and balanced. (Para 54 , 56 )
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Leave granted.
2. 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 which have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
Facts: Writ Petition (C) No. 85 of 2015
3. The writ petition has been filed by the Telangana Judges Association, a registered forum, formed to protect the interest of the Judicial Officers of State of Telangana. The petitioner has challenged the recruitment process initiated by the High court of the Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the High Court') for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner's case is that consequent to the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014(hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2014') with effect from 02.06.2014 a new State has been formed, namely, State of Telangana without permitting the option envisaged in Section 77 (2) of the Act, 2014 and without bifurcation of subordinate judiciary the recruitment process has been initiated which is not in accordance with law. Petitioner's case is that from the establishment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the year 1956, there has been inadequate representation of Telangana Judges in the cadres of Junior Civil Judges, Senior Civil Judges, District Judges and even Judges of the High Court. The impugned notification issued by respondent No.2 without constituting Telangana State Judicial Service and without preparing State wise cadre strength of respective States would affect the seniority as well as promotion of the Telangana State Judicial Officers whose strength is at present 25% only in comparison with Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Officers.
4. 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 this Court. An application was filed by the High Court in C.A. No.1867 of 2006 (Malik Mazhar Sultan & Ors. vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors.) on which this Court on 07.07.2014 passed an order permitting the status quo. However, this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan 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 (Dumpala Dharma Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.) was also filed in this 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. Petitioners have also submitted suggestions for the purpose of final guidelines for allocation of States services to the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioners also submitted representation to the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 02.12.2014 requesting that the guidelines issued by the Government of India may be made applicable to the Personnel of Subordinate Judiciary and to take necessary expeditious steps for allocation of members of Subordinate Judiciary.
5. In the writ petition petitioner has made the fo
