Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Sanjeev Bhatia, S/o Satinder Pal Bhatia and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
High Court of Jharkhand through Its Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 3701 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.II, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Adv.

Only individuals with legal standing can challenge administrative decisions, particularly regarding roster fixation and seniority disputes.

Headnote:(A) Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 - Rule 8(d) - Writ petition challenging roster fixation - Petitioners, appointed as District Judges in 2019, contested the roster prepared in 2016, claiming improper placement of promotees - Court held that petitioners lacked locus to challenge the roster as they were not part of the cadre at the time of its preparation - Delay in filing the petition also barred the challenge. (Paras 1-13, 26)

(B) Locus Standi - The principle that only those with a legal standing can challenge administrative decisions was emphasized, particularly in relation to roster preparation and seniority disputes. (Paras 11, 25)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, appointed as District Judges in 2019, challenged the roster fixation of 2016, claiming errors in the placement of promotees and seeking rectification under Rule 8(d) of the Rules. They argued that the roster was improperly fixed and sought various writs to quash notifications related to the roster.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no standing to challenge the 2016 roster as they were not part of the cadre at that time and that the challenge was belated. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing for future grievances regarding new roster arrangements.

Issues: The main issues included the petitioners' locus to challenge the 2016 roster and the legality of promotions made in 2016.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners, having been appointed after the roster was prepared, lacked the standing to challenge it, and that a significant delay in filing the petition barred their claims.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

1. Petitioners in this Writ petition are serving as District Judges in the State of Jharkhand and are direct recruits in a recruitment process which commenced in 2017 and who were appointed on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019.

2. The issue in the writ petition relates to fixation of roster inter-se between direct recruits and promotees of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services governed by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001.

3. Initially in 2004, through a notification dt. 20.08.2004, it was laid down that (i) 50% of posts of District Judges amongst Sub-Judges were to be filled by promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test, (ii) 25% were to be filled by promotion by way of selection strictly on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years service and (iii) 25% were to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of a test and viva voce conducted by the High Court.

4. This was modified through a notification dt. 14.12.2011 in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. Under the 2011 Amendment, (i) 65% posts of District Judges had to be filled by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges, (ii) 10% were to be filled by promotion by way of selection on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years of service and (iii) 25% were to be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of the written test and viva voce conducted by the High Court.

5. Rule 8(d) of the said Rules provided for maintenance of the roster after appointment/promotion to fix the seniority of direct recruits vis-à-vis promotee officers. It directed that a 100 point roster be prepared and earmarked certain roster points for each of the 3 categories mentioned in the Rules.

6. The petitioners fall in the category of the 25% directly recruited from the Bar. Their recruitment process had commenced in 2017 and was completed on 5.8.2019 and 6.8.2019 when they were appointed as District Judges.

7. In the writ petition at para 10, the petitioners, however, make out a grievance about alleged wrong fixation of officers recruited in 2012 and 2013 from direct quota and officers promoted in the year 2012 to 2015 in a roster notified by the High Court on 27.6.2016.

8. They contend that in the said roster, after 100 points, 12 officers promoted in 2015 had been erroneously placed en-bloc; that the roster point fixation till 100 roster points does not call for any interference but the en-bloc placement of 12 officers beyond the 100 roster points is contrary to the Rules and needs to be re-fixed (revised) as per Rule 8(d) of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001.

9. In K.Meghachandra Singh and others v. Ningam Siro and others, (2020)5 SCC 689, the Supreme Court held:

“38. …none can be identified as being a selected candidate on the date when the process of recruitment had commenced. On that day, a body of persons aspiring to be appointed to the vacancy intended for direct recruits was not in existence. The persons who might respond to an advertisement cannot have any service-related rights, not to talk of right to have their seniority counted from the date of the advertisement. In other words, only on completion of the process, the applicant morphs into a selected candidate….”

10. The above principle was again reiterated in Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. High Court of Rajasthan, (2020) 19 SCC 604.

11. We fail to understand how the petitioners can find fault with a roster prepared on 27.6.2016 when the very recruitment process under which they were directly recruited commenced in 2017 and concluded in August, 2019; and the petitioners were not born in the cadre of District Judges on 27.06.2016 and were bo