2023 0 Supreme(SC) 200
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar Shrivas – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1514 OF 2023 (Arising from S.L.P. (Civil) No. 32872/2018)
Decided On : 13-03-2023
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment in Higher Judiciary – There shall be 25% of seats for direct recruitment from Bar, 65% of seats are to be filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination – Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota.
Service Law – Appointment in Higher Judiciary – There shall be 25% of seats for direct recruitment from Bar, 65% of seats are to be filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination – If candidates are not available for 10% seats, or are not able to qualify in examination then vacant posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in accordance with Service Rules applicable – On and from 1.1.2011, only 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination – Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota – High Court has to undertake exercise from 1.1.2011 adjusting posts and if any appointments are found to have been made beyond 10% seats in a particular recruitment, same shall have to be adjusted in future recruitment. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3190/2018, by which High Court has dismissed said writ petition by holding that original writ petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto, original writ petitioner No.1 has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
So far as challenge to appointments made in excess of the quota under limited departmental competitive examination since 2007 and appointments made in the year 2017/2018, no relief can be granted to original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointed candidates.
Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Ashutosh Garg, AOR For the Respondent(s) : Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mrs. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Adv.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3190/2018, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by holding that the original writ petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto, the original writ petitioner No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2. Before the High Court, the original writ petitioners prayed for the following reliefs:
A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the appointments of the Quota under limited competitive examination since 2007 and pursue it and quash the impugned order dated 19.01.2018 (Annex. P-11) and 25.01.2018.
B. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel the appointments Exceeds 10% of Quota of the candidates to appointed through limited competitive examination u/r 5(1)(b) of rules 1994, since 2007 to 2017 exceeds the limit of 10% quota as fixed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and direct to filled up the seats with regular promotion.
C. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to the respondents to make the necessary amendment in rule 5(1) (b) of the rules 1994 and reduce the limit from 25% to 10% appointment in limited competitive examination so that Hon’ble Apex Court order dated 20.04.2010 passed in All India Judges Association and others V/s Union of India and others may be compliance.
D. The Hon’ble Court may kindly direct to the initiate departmental enquiry, against the authority who deliberately disobedient the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and with regard to not following the quota limit of 10% u/r 5(1)(b) of rules of 1994 with regard to limited competitive examination, and punish to them an accordance with law.
E. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.
3. Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that despite the directions issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 170, directing all the High Courts to fill up the posts in the higher judiciary by reserving 10% seats to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has exceeded the quota and has filled up the posts in the higher judiciary beyond 10% quota. It is/was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that despite the specific direction issued by this Court directing all the High Courts to see that the existing Service Rules be amended positively with effect from 1.1.2011, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh did not amend the rules providing 10% seats to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination.
4. By the impugned judgment and order and despite the fact that the aforesaid reliefs were prayed by the original writ petitioners, the High Court has considered that the original writ petitioners have prayed for a writ of quo warranto. The aforesaid reliefs cannot be said to be the reliefs of a writ of quo warranto. However, instead of remanding the matter to the High Court, we ourselves have considered the matter and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas