K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—Discordant notes of inter-se seniority imperil harmonious co-existence within a cadre and foster dissonance. It gives rise to rancor among colleagues; especially when the appointments are differently sourced, through direct recruitment and promotions from the feeder categories. The Higher Judicial Services in the various States are no exception, where appointments are from three sources; by promotions from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) (65%), by Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) again from Civil Judge (Senior Division) (10%) and from the Bar by direct recruitment (25%). The petitioners herein are all promotees, those in CWJC Nos. 11470 of 2022 and 12592 of 2022 being the promotees under the 65% quota and those in CWJC Nos. 14537 of 2022 and 16771 of 2022 being the promotees under the 10% quota of LCE. The promotees of the year 2018-19 commonly assail the seniority conferred on the direct recruits appointed in 2018 but to the vacancies that arose in and prior to 2016-2017. Those promoted under the fast-track LCE quota also have inter-se disputes of seniority amongst themselves.

2. On facts it is to be noticed that the notification for direct recruitment was issued on 22.08.2016 (Annexure-P6 in CWJC 14537 of 2022) and the selection notified was to 98 vacancies as on 31.03.2017; which were carried over vacancies of years prior to and including 2016-17. Ninety-six direct recruits were appointed to the substantive posts of Additional District Judges (for brevity ‘ADJs’ hereafter) on 28.05.2018. Two were appointed later on judicial orders on 12.06.2019 and 11.02.2020. Together with these 11 Civil Judges (Senior Division) were promoted against the 65% quota on 22.12.2017 and there was no LCE conducted since all those who were eligible were promoted under the 65% quota. In the very next year of recruitment, promotions under the 65% and the 10% quota were notified on 16.01.2018; the appointments to the substantive posts having been made respectively on 10.12.2018 and 25.03.2019. The persons who were appointed under the 65% and 10% quota in the year 2018 were not qualified to appear in the selection along with the 11 officers earlier appointed with the direct recruits; those under the 65% quota having qualified only in the month of December 2017, when they completed three years in the Senior Division. But for two officers under the LCE; who qualified under both the 65% & 10% quota, the other 16 under the quota for LCE qualified only as on 31.08.2018. As per the gradation list produced and challenged in the writ petitions, the direct recruits were interspersed with the eleven promotees in the selection year 2016-2017 as per the roster points; which promotees are not parties here since there is no dispute between the said promotees and direct recruits. Insofar as the persons appointed under the 65% and 10% quotas, the seniority was assigned to the persons appointed through the two different streams, as per the roster and again interspersed; de hors the date of appointment to the substantive posts, but placing them enblock under the direct recruits of the earlier year. The petitioners who are the promotees under the two streams of selection, assail the seniority assigned to the direct recruits; who were admittedly appointed to the substantive posts prior to the appointment of the petitioners themselves. Within the promotees under the 10% LCE quota, there arise a dispute between two officers and the other 16 as to how their seniority is to be fixed inter-se. Whether it be on the basis of their seniority in the feeder category; as the rule provides or in accordance with their merit in the LCE; as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ARGUMENTS:-

3. Shri Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in CWJC No. 12592 of 2022 led the arguments, seriously assailing the validity of Explanation (2) to Rule 16(e) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Services Rules 1951 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1951’). It was argued tha