2023 Supreme(Del) 1283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Ms. Neetu Nagar – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 16555 of 2022, CM APPLs. 52062 of 2022 and 13863 of 2023
Decided On : 24-04-2023

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. The court emphasized the importance of following the categorical and self-contained rules, and the potential disruption of seniority if the petitioner's request was granted.

Headnote:

PAST SERVICE - CALCULATING QUALIFYING SERVICE - DHJS Rules 1970, Rule 7(1)(b) - The court considered whether the past service rendered by the petitioner as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) 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 by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. The court held that the petitioner had to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria of service in the feeder grade i.e. DJS. The Rules are categorical and provide for exception, therefore one cannot rely upon the residuary rule to import any other OM. The judgment in Renu Mullick (supra) has no application. Reliance on the O.M. dated 1st September, 1998 is misplaced as there is no lateral entry. In All India Judges Association v. UOI & Ors. (supra), there is no direction stipulating that the service rendered as a judicial officer in another state is to be counted towards the qualifying services. Permitting petitioner to appear in the LDCE would amount to permitting her to take a leap over other judicial officers who are otherwise her seniors.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to challenge the decision rejecting her request to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) by counting her past service with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) towards the qualifying service of ten years as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's past service with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) could not be counted towards the qualifying service for promotion to the DHJS. The court held that the petitioner had to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria of service in the feeder grade i.e. DJS. The court also emphasized that the Rules are categorical and provide for exception, and the judgment in Renu Mullick (supra) has no application. The court concluded that permitting the petitioner to appear in the LDCE would amount to permitting her to take a leap over other judicial officers who are otherwise her seniors.

Issues: The issue was whether the past service rendered by the petitioner as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) could be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the DHJS Rules, the lack of provision for counting past service from another state, and the potential unfairness of allowing the petitioner to take a leap over other judicial officers who are otherwise her seniors.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the decision rejecting her request to appear for the LDCE by counting her past service with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) towards the qualifying service of ten years as Civil Judge (Junior Division).