The essential qualification for a post is solely for the employer to determine, and the court cannot extend benefits beyond the prescribed purview of the rules.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

ISSUE

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the past service rendered by the petitioner as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (‘HCS’) can be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service viz. ten years as Civil Judge (Junior Division), for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (‘DHJS’) by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (‘LDCE’) in terms of Rule 7(1)(b) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 (‘DHJS Rules’)

FACTS

2. The facts germane to the present case are that the petitioner joined the HCS on 27th June, 2012 as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Subsequently, the petitioner successfully participated in the Delhi Judicial Service Examination, 2015 and joined the Delhi Judicial Service (‘DJS’) on 11th May, 2018 through proper channel i.e., after getting relieved on 10th May, 2018 from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, Haryana.

3. Based on her past service in the HCS, the petitioner was exempted from undergoing mandatory induction training upon her request and was given benefit of her past service in HCS for the limited purpose of being exempted from training in the DJS, carry forward of leave, Leave Travel Concession (‘LTC’) and pay protection.

4. The petitioner vide letter dated 26th July, 2022 requested this Court to allow her to appear for the LDCE 2022 for promotion to the DHJS by counting her past service with the HCS towards the qualifying service often years as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner's request was placed before the Examination Committee of this Court.

5. The Committee, in its meeting held on 29th August, 2022, rejected the representation of the petitioner. By this Court's letter dated 7th September, 2022, the petitioner was informed through the concerned learned Principal District and Sessions Judge that her request had been considered and rejected by this Court.

6. By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the aforesaid decision of the Committee.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was initially appointed in the HCS on 6th June, 2012 and in continuation had joined DJS, without even a single day's break. He emphasised that the level of pay held by the petitioner both in HCS and DJS was the same i.e. 27,700-44,770/-. Consequently, according to him, the petitioner had made a lateral entry in DJS.

8. He stated that the provision for making Civil Judge (Junior Division) with ten years qualifying service eligible for promotion in ten per cent LDCE quota for DHJS came into effect only from 19th April, 2022 by virtue of judicial order of the Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Association v. UOI, (2022) 7 SCC 494. He contended that the competent authority whilst taking the impugned decision in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 29th August, 2022 had not considered the above judgment of the Supreme Court.

9. He stated that this is despite the respondents have clearly admitted that the petitioner is entitled to the following benefits on account of the past service rendered by the petitioner:—

a. Exemption from training in DJS considering her judicial experience/training at HCS.

b. Carry forward of leave.

c. Carry forward of LTC.

d. Protection of pay.

e. For the purposes of pension.

10. He contended that the aforesaid benefits have been given to the petitioner only by applying the DOP&T O.M. dated 17th August, 2016, meant for corresponding level of Central Govt employees. According to him, the same was done by applying Rules 33 and 27 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (‘DJS Rules’) and DHJS Rules which respectively deal with the ‘Residuary Matters’ and lay down that if no provision or insufficient provision is available in the rules or any matter, the same shall