The quota rule should be strictly enforced and linked with the Seniority Rules. The date of appointment for determining seniority should be the date of substantive appointment, and the quota rule applies only to the permanent authorized strength of the service.

Headnote:
TRIPURA JUDICIAL SERVICE - Recruitment - Quota Rule - Seniority - Interpretation of Rules.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, Tripura Bar Association and a member of the Association, challenged the underemployment of Grade-I posts in the Tripura Judicial Service by direct recruitment, in violation of the quota rule. They also contended that Rule 3 of the Tripura Judicial Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981, was unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the quota rule should be strictly enforced and could not be meddled with on administrative exigencies. It should be linked with the Seniority Rules, and the date of appointment for determining seniority should be the date of substantive appointment as per Rule 11 of the Service Rules. The quota rule would not apply to temporary posts but only to the permanent authorized strength of the service. 25% of the Grade-I posts were to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar, and the remaining 75% by promotion.
Issues: 1. Whether the quota rule should be applied to both permanent and temporary posts in the Tripura Judicial Service. 2. Whether Rule 3 of the Tripura Judicial Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981, was valid and consistent with the Recruitment Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in V.B. Badami vs. State of Mysore, which held that quota rules should generally be worked out in respect of permanent vacancies and not temporary vacancies. 2. The Court interpreted Rule 3 of the Seniority Rules in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Badami and Sonal Sihimappa vs. State of Karnataka, holding that the 'date of appointment' should be interpreted as the 'date of substantive appointment' in the cadre as per Rule 11 of the Service Rules.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the vacant posts in the authorized permanent strength be worked out, and respondents 4 to 7 and other promotees be appointed substantively against those permanent posts and confirmed as per Rule 11 of the Service Rules. The inter se seniority of members of the Grade-I cadre of the Service should be determined with reference to the date of substantive appointment in the Grade-I cadre of the Service and be published within three months. The two vacant posts falling within the quota of direct recruits were to be filled up by making appointments from amongst the members of the Bar.

S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.:-

In this writ petition, petitioner No. 1 is the Tripura Bar Association and petitioner No. 2 was a member of the said Association at the material time. On behalf of the petitioners fallowing submissions are made

(a) That although as per provisions of Rule 6 (3)(b) of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules') it is mandatory that 25% appointment to the posts in Grade-I other than the Legal Remembrancer and Secretary, Law Department and the Registrar, High Court, shall be made by direct recruitment from amongst the members of the Bar, there has all along been under employment to the post of Grade-I of the Service by direct recruitment in violation of the quota rule.

(b) Rule 3 of the Tripura Judicial Service (Determination of Seniority)Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Seniority Bules') which has come into force with effect from first day of January, 1975 providing that the inter se seniority of all the members of Grade-I of the service, whether direct recruits or promotees, shall be determined with reference to the date of their appointment in the Grade, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and also inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules.

2. Petitioners' case is that although the Service Rule was framed in the year 1974, no direct recruitment in the Grade-I service was made for years together and all the posts were filled up by promotees. Appointment was made in the service from the Bar for the first time in the year 1981 end Sri S. Deb, an Advocate was appointed. But before completion of probationary period of two years, Sri Deb resigned and respondent No. 12 Sri D. Purakayastha was appointed as a direct recruit from the Bar in the Grade-I service in January, 1983.

3. Government of Tripura by Notification issued under letter No. F.9(28)-J/79 dated 3.11.1980 with the prior permission of the Finance Department, created two temporary posts of District Judge. Thereafter by Notification No. F.1(4)-J (J)/81 dated 2nd February, 1981 (Annexure-2 to the petition) Governor of Tripura in the exercise of power under Rule 16 of the Tripura (Court) Order, 1950, in supersession of all other Notifications issued on that behalf ordered that on and from 10th February, 1981, the Tripura Civil District Judgeship shall be divided into following Civil Districts for the purpose of Chapter-III of the said order;

(i) Court of District Judge, West Tripura.

(ii) Court of District Judge, South Tripura.

(iii) Court of District Judge, North Tripura. The petitioners' case is that prior to issue of Notification dated 3rd November, 1980, there was only one District Judge in the whole State of Tripura. After the creation of two temporary posts, Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee, Additional District & Sessions Judge was appointed as District & Sessions Judge by Notification dated 6th December, 1980 and respondent No. 4 was promoted from Grade-II service to Grade-I service temporarily as District & Sessions Judge, by Notification No. F. 5(6)-J/79 dated 1.1.81 In the resultant vacant post of Grade-I, following the appointment of Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee against the temporary post of District & Sessions Judge, respondent No. 5 was promoted temporarily from Grade-II service to Grade-I in the cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judge.

4, Thereafter, by Government Notification No. F. 9(28)-J/79 dated 22.10.81, three temporary posts of Additional District Judge in the Grade-1 service of Tripura Judicial Service were created. In these three posts respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 were temporarily promoted from Grade-II cadre. Aforesaid 5 (five) temporary posts were extended from year to year by the Government. By Notification dated 10th July, 1985 Sri B. K. Bhattacharjee and respondent No. 4 were confirmed in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service. Petitioners' contention is that with the creation of two posts of District Judge and three posts of Additional District Judge, 5(five) posts have been added

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1991 Supreme(Gau) 75

GAUHATI HIGH COURTM.Sarma, S.K.Homchaudhuri, JJ.Tripura Bar Association, Agartala and Another -AppellantVersusState of Tripura & Others. -RespondentCivil Rule No. 144 of 1986Decided On : 11-04-1991

The quota rule should be strictly enforced and linked with the Seniority Rules. The date of appointment for determining seniority should be the date of substantive appointment, and the quota rule applies only to the permanent authorized strength of the service.

Cases Referred (6)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M.Sarma, S.K.Homchaudhuri, JJ.
Tripura Bar Association, Agartala and Another -Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Others. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 144 of 1986
Decided On : 11-04-1991