Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Anand Kumar Tiwari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 675 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No. 997 of 2020
Decided On : 12-08-2021
Service Law – Seniority – Inter-se seniority of direct recruited and promotee District Judges through Limited Competitive Examination – Petitioners are direct recruits – After introduction of 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotees shall be determined on the basis of Roster – Full Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court requested Special Committee to examine dispute of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees through LCE in light of Rule 11 of 1994 Rules and Rule 12 of 1961 Rules. After giving an opportunity to all stakeholders, Special Committee resolved to follow 1961 Rules according to which relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees was determined according to date of appointment/ promotion order – Taking note of absence of any provision for determining inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees, Special Committee suggested amendment to Rules – Realising that principle of continuous officiation is well settled, especially where inter-se seniority is not dealt with in Rules, Full Court of High Court correctly approved resolution of Special Committee – Writ Petitions dismissed. [Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – Rule 11 – Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of Service) Rules, 1961 – Rule 12 – Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 – Rule 11] (Paras 12 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.675 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the amendment made on 08.06.2005 to Madhya Pradesh Uchchtar Nyayik Sewa (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 and for quashing order dated 27.10.2015 by which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh determined inter-se seniority of direct recruited and promotee District Judges through a Limited Competitive Examination (LCE’). Further, Petitioners sought a direction to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give effect to the provisional gradation list dated 04.09.2007. The relief sought in Writ Petition (C) No. 997 of 2020 is for quashing Rule 11 of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017. Another relief sought in the said Writ Petition is to direct the Respondents to give retrospective effect to 2017 Rules. Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were directly recruited as District Judges to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. Main grievance of the Writ Petitioners pertains to order dated 27.10.2015 by which seniority list was issued showing Petitioners below the District Judges who were promoted through LCE in the year 2009.
Findings of Court:
As we have answered the main issues against the Petitioners, it is not necessary to deal with other submissions made on their behalf. Counsel for Respondent No. 11 submitted that service rendered by Respondent No.11 in the Fast-Track Court should be counted while computing his seniority. Respondent No. 11 is at liberty to pursue his remedies as this Court is not concerned with the said issue in these Writ Petitions.
Result : Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Writ Petition (C) No. 675 of 2018 has been filed for quashing the amendment made on 08.06.2005 to Madhya Pradesh Uchchtar Nyayik Sewa (Bharti Tatha Seva Sharten) Niyam, 1994 and for quashing the order dated 27.10.2015 by which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh determined the inter-se seniority of direct recruited and promotee District Judges through a Limited Competitive Examination (for short, ‘the LCE’). Further, the Petitioners sought a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give effect to the provisional gradation list dated 04.09.2007. The relief sought in Writ Petition (C) No. 997 of 2020 is for quashing Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the 2017 Rules’). Another relief sought in the said Writ Petition is to direct the Respondents to give retrospective effect to the 2017 Rules. The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions were directly recruited as District Judges to the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. As the issues that arise in the Writ Petitions are the same, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 675 of 2018 were appointed as District Judges (entry level) by direct recruitment on 10.09.2009. A provisional gradation list of the District Judges was issued by a notification dated 15.02.2010. In the said provisional gradation list, the Petitioners were shown as seniors to those District Judges who were promoted through LCE. A representation was made on behalf of the District Judges promoted through LCE for altering the gradation list and showing them as seniors to the direct recruits. The Administrative Committee accepted the representation and resolved to give seniority to three promotees through LCE over direct recruits. On 18.05.2013, the Full Court accepted the recommendations of the Special Committee for granting seniority to the District Judges promoted through LCE over direct recruits. Thereafter, the Special Committee constituted for considering the inter-se seniority of judicial officers undertook the issue afresh in the light of Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, ‘the 1994 Rules’) and resolved to recommend that the District Judges who were promoted through LCE on 02.09.2009 shall be given seniority over the directly recruited District Judges who were appointed on 10.09.2009. This decision was taken on the basis that the seniority between direct recruits and promotees shall be determined in accordance with the date of appointment. The recommendation made by the Special Committee was accepted by the Administrative Committee on 13.10.2015. The Full Court approved the recommendation made by the Special Committee regarding the inter-se seniority of the District Judges. Consequently, the seniority list was issued on 27.10.2015 on the basis of the Full Court resolution. The main grievance of the Writ Petitioners pertains to the order dated 27.10.2015 by which the seniority list was issued showing the Petitioners below the District Judges who were promoted through LCE in the year 2009.
3. The brief facts in Writ Petition (C) No. 997 of 2020 are that the Petitioner was appointed as a District Judge (entry level) in the direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Services in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 27.05.2008. He preferred representations between 02.08.2010 and 31.05.2014 for determination of seniority on the basis of 40 point roster, as per the directions of this Court in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247. The representations preferred by him were rejected on 11.09.2019 on the ground that the 2017 Rules came into force with effect from 13.03.2018 and are prospective in operation. The Petitioner was informed that the roster for determining the inter-se seniority of the District Judges shall be im
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
