Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, P.S. Rana, JJ.
Ranjeet Singh - Petitioner
Vs
State of HP & ors - Respondents
CWP No.1466 of 2010 along with CWP No.1467, 1468, 8074 of 2010, CWP Nos. 6425 and 6586 of 2011
Decided on : 7-9-2016
JUDGMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Judicial Officers, were aggrieved by the promotion of private respondents, also Judicial Officers, to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) over them. The promotions were made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority from the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having the minimum experience of 5 years in the said cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the selection of private respondents was not bad in law, contrary to established norms and procedure. The Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Suitability Test for Promotion to the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) from amongst the Civil Judges (Junior Division), Regulations 2009 were not ultra vires to the provision of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004. The Court further held that it was not beyond the power of the High Court to frame such rules and the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 2004 did not prescribe any suitability test for promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn) Regulation of 2004 as amended in 2009 suffered from the vires of excessive delegation of power and as such cannot be sustained. There were no criteria for the assessment of ACRs in the Regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the selection of private respondents was bad in law, contrary to established norms and procedure? 2. Whether the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Suitability Test for Promotion to the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) from amongst the Civil Judges (Junior Division), Regulations 2009 were ultra vires to the provision of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004? 3. Whether it was beyond the power of the High Court to frame such rules? 4. Whether the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 2004 prescribed any suitability test for promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn) Regulation of 2004 as amended in 2009 suffered from the vires of excessive delegation of power? 5. Whether there were any criteria for the assessment of ACRs in the Regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the selection of private respondents was not bad in law, contrary to established norms and procedure as the selection was made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority from the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) having the minimum experience of 5 years in the said cadre, in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the High Court in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 2. The Court held that the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Suitability Test for Promotion to the cadre of Civil Judges (Senior Division) from amongst the Civil Judges (Junior Division), Regulations 2009 were not ultra vires to the provision of Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004 as the regulations were framed in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. The Court held that it was not beyond the power of the High Court to frame such rules as the High Court has the power to frame rules and regulations for the recruitment and conditions of service of members of different cadres of H.P. Judicial Service. 4. The Court held that the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules 2004 did not prescribe any suitability test for promotion to the post of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn) Regulation of 2004 as amended in 2009 did not suffer from the vires of excessive delegation of power as the regulations were framed in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. The Court held that there were no criteria for the assessment of ACRs in the Regulations as the regulations did not provide any specific criteria for the assessment of ACRs.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Petitioners and private respondents are all Judicial Officers. Petitioners were admittedly senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division). However, private respondents scored a march over them in the promotion/selection to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and aggrieved by such promotion have filed these writ petitions.
3. On 16.3.2004, the State in exercise of powers conferred by Articles 233, 234 and proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Sub section (1) of Section 4 of the H.P. Judicial Officers (Pay and Conditions of Service), Act, 2003 in consultation with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the State Public Service Commission framed Rules, regulating the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Members of different cadres of H.P. Judicial Service, nomenclatured as Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004. Some of the salient provisions of these rules are as under.
“.Rule 2(1) (g) ‘Regulations’ means the regulations framed by the High Court under these rules for the following purposes:-
(i) To prescribe the syllabus for the competitive examination and suitability test to be conducted by the High Court for the cadre of District Judges/ Addl. District Judges and the cadre of Civil Judges (Jr. Division).
(ii) …………..
(iii) ………………
(iv) To prescribe the syllabus and to conduct the departmental examinations for the different cadres of the H.P. Judicial Service.
(v) To prescribe the syllabus for and to conduct the special examinations or tests, if any, required to be passed during the period of probation or officiation in relation to all the appointments to the service by direct recruitment or by promotion,
(vi) To evaluate the performance of the officers and assign marks for the competitive examination to be conducted by the High Court for the cadre of District Judges/Addl. District Judges,
(vii) ……….
(viii) To evaluate the performance of the officers (appointed to the service) in relaxation to departmental and special examinations or tests.
(ix) …….
Rule 4 (2) The Civil Judges (Sr. Division) shall be promoted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Civil Judges (Junior Division) shall be appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
Rule – 5. Method of recruitment, qualification and age limit.- In respect of each category of posts specified in column (2) of the Table below, the method of recruitment and minimum qualification, age limit etc. shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in columns (3) and (4) thereof.
TABLE UNDER RULE – 5
Sr. No
Cadre
Method of Recruitment
Qualification, age limit and experience etc.
1.
XXX
XXX
XXX
2.
Civil Judge (Sr. Division)
By promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
Minimum experience of 5 years in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Note. – The appointing authority, may in situations where Civil Judges (Jr. Division) with the aforesaid requisite experience are not available, relax the aforesaid minimum experience criteria but in no case shall such relaxation go below three years.
4. On 4.1.2007, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Others, 2008 (17) SCC 703, issued various directions for filling up of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge, Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and requested the High Courts to constitute a Committee of two or three Judges to monitor and ov
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
