The quota rule for direct recruits in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, did not imply a rotational system for determining seniority, and the seniority of members of the Superior Judicial Service was to be determined strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12, which provided for seniority based on the respective dates of confirmation.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. Shri Narender Singh Rao, District and Sessions Judge, Ambala (now posted at Hissar) has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the constitutional validity of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service (Haryana Ist Amendment) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules) (copy Annexure P. 5 to the petition), by which the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules) has been amended retrospectively with effect from 1.04.1970, with a prayer that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order of this Court dated 22.11.1976 (copy Annexure P. 11 to the petition) by which the seniority of the petitioner had been changed to his detriment. A further prayer has also been made that the petitioner be declared senior to all the private respondents and be placed above Shri Jagmohan Lal Tandon respondent No. 3, in the seniority list.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before us, it is necessary to recapitulate certain material facts as stated in the petition, which read as under :-

The petitioner is presently serving as a substantive permanent District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana. According to the Service Rules, only permanent posts of District/Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Legal Remembrancer and Secretary to the Government constitute the Superior Judicial Service as provided in Appendix A to the Service Rules. Recruitment to the service is regulated by R. 8, which reads as under :-

"8- Recruitment to Service (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be made :- (i) by promotion from the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch); or

(ii) by direct recruitment.

(2) of the total number of cadre posts, two-thirds shall be manned by promoted officers and one-third by direct recruits. Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall prevent the officiating appointment of a member of the Provincial Civil Service (Judicial Branch) on any post which is to be filled up by direct recruitment, till a direct recruit is appointed.

3. According to the aforesaid rule, two-thirds of the posts in the Superior Judicial Service are to be filled by way of promotion and the remaining one-third by direct recruitment. On the date when the State of Haryana came into existence, i. e., 1.11.1966, Superior Judicial Service, Haryana, comprised of seven permanent posts. Out of these posts, two were manned by direct recruits while the remaining five posts were held by promotees. The posts of the direct recruits remained unfilled from 21.08.1969 till 7.07.1970, as the incumbents of those posts had been elevated to the Bench of this Court and on their appointment as permanent Judges, the posts became vacant.

3A On Jan. 5, 1970, on the permanent appointment of Mr. Justice A. D. Koshal (now Hon ble the Chief Justice) as a Judge of this Court, applications were invited for direct appointment to that permanent post of District and Sessions Judge in May, 1970. The petitioner applied and ultimately he was selected and appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on probation vide order dated 1.07.1970. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner took charge at Karnal on 7.07.1970, and has been serving as a member of the Superior Judicial Service since then.

4. The petitioner has traced a little history as to how some of the Judicial officers (promotees) had made effort to get the Service Rules amended as they had apprehended that the petitioner would become senior to all of them, having joined the Superior Judicial Service against a permanent post on 7.07.1970, and that these officers were ultimately successful in persuading the State Government to amend the Service Rules for their benefit and to the detriment of the petitioner. It is also stated in the petition that in spite of the opposition of the High Court, the amendments in the Service Rules were carried out by the State Government