Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 354

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
All India Judges Association And Others - Appellants
Versus
Union of India And Others - Respondents
I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 In Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
And
In The Matter Of
Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan And Another - Applicants
I.A. No. 89450, 88976 of 2021, 249 of 2009, 44132 of 2022
Decided on : 19-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar,Sr. Adv (A.C.) Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sidhar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. ASG Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, AOR Mr. G.S. Makker, AOR Ms. Indira Bhakar Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Ms. C. Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. C. Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. M. Veera Ragavan, Adv. Mr. Bheem Singh Dabla, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv. Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Adv. Sweena Nair, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Adv Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Adv. Ojaswa Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Anil Nag, AOR Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. P. V. Dinesh, AOR Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. T. L. Garg, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, AOR Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. S. Janani, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. T.L.V. Ramachari, Adv. Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Alok Kumar, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. M/S. Arputham Aruna and Co, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Prashant K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jenis Francis, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, AOR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bansal, AAG Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR Mr.Gaurav Yadava, Adv Ms veena Bansal, Adv Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Adv./AG Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Vaidehi Kothari, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr Adv Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. M/s. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv. Mr. Bishwendra N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kanojiya, Adv. Mr. Siddesh Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhayay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Akash Singh, Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Sr Adv/AAG Mr. Vivek Mahajan, Adv Mr. Vidit Anand, Adv Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv Mr. Arun Singh, Adv Mr. Vinod Sharma, Aor Mr. Surinder Singh Manak, Adv Mr. Parijat Som, Adv Mr. Salik Ram, Adv Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv. Mr. T.K. Nayak,Adv. Mr. P.S. Negi, Adv. Mr. S.R. Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha, AAG Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Ravi C. Prakash, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Singh, Adv. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv. Mr. Vipin Sandu, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, A.A.G/AoR Mr. Sukant Vikram, Adv Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv Mr. Aditya Narayan Das, Adv Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify its previous orders to address the peculiar situation in the High Court of Delhi and reduce the minimum qualifying service for promotion to DHJS under LDCE.

Headnote:
Modification of Orders - Judicial Officers - [(2002) 4 SCC 247], [(2010) 15 SCC 170] - The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and the directions issued by the court in its orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th April 2010. The court emphasized the need for an objective method of testing the suitability of subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service and issued directions for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. The court also reduced the 25% quota for limited departmental competitive examination to 10% due to difficulty in finding candidates for LDCE. The High Court of Delhi was directed to reserve two seats for the judicial officers-applicants to ensure their claims are not defeated by delay in holding the examination.
Fact of the Case:

The judicial officers sought modification of the court's orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th April 2010 to reduce the minimum qualifying service for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) under the limited departmental competitive examination (LDCE) from 5 years to 7 years or 10 years total qualifying service as Civil Judge.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the peculiar situation in the High Court of Delhi frustrated the purpose of providing an incentive for promotion through LDCE and allowed the modification of the orders to reduce the minimum qualifying service to 7 years or 10 years total qualifying service as Civil Judge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility requirement for promotion to DHJS under LDCE, the difficulty in finding candidates for LDCE, and the peculiar situation in the High Court of Delhi where the nature of work for Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court modified the orders to reduce the minimum qualifying service for promotion to DHJS under LDCE to 7 years or 10 years total qualifying service as Civil Judge, considering the peculiar situation in the High Court of Delhi.
Final Decision: The court allowed the modification of the orders and directed that the modifications shall apply only insofar as the DHJS is concerned.

ORDER :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 has been filed by two judicial officers in the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as “DJS”) namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and Dr. Shirish Aggarwal, for modification of the orders dated 21st March 2002[(2002) 4 SCC 247] and 20th April 2010,[(2010) 15 SCC 170] passed by this Court in the present writ petition. I.A. No. 89450 of 2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers seeking permission to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “LDCE”) initiated by the High Court of Delhi through its letter No. 3849/Exam.Cell/DHJSCL Exam/2021 dated 15th July 2021, for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as “DHJS”) District Judge Cadre and to consider the candidature of the judicial officers-applicants on merits, subject to the outcome of the application for modification. I.A. No. 44132 of 2022 in I.A. No.89450 of 2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers praying for a direction to the High Court of Delhi to identify two seats of LDCE quota of DHJS from the roster under Rule 7(2) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) and to reserve them for the judicial officers-applicants. I.A. No.88976 of 2021 has also been filed by the same judicial officers praying for their impleadment as co-petitioners in the present writ petition.

2. I.A. No.249 of 2009 has been filed by the High Court of Delhi praying for reducing the minimum qualifying service to 7 years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25% quota of LDCE.

3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the judicial officers-applicants, Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi and Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing as amicus curiae.

4. The present writ petition pertains to the working conditions of the members of subordinate judiciary throughout the country. This Court has issued various directions from time to time. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the then Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (Department of Justice), Government of India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission (also known as “Shetty Commission”) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty vide Resolution dated 21st March 1996. The Shetty Commission, after due deliberation, submitted its report on 11th November 1991. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission came to be considered by this Court in its order dated 21st March 2002, passed in the present writ petition. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in paragraph (27) of the said order, which read thus:

“27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the judicial officers, hardworking as they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion tha