Rajneesh Bansal vs State of Haryana - 2022 Supreme(P&H) 1455

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Sandeep Moudgil, JJ.
Rajneesh Bansal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
CWP-16863 of 2015 CM-10828-CWP of 2015 & CM-12873-CWP of 2020 CM-14506-CWP of 2016 & CM-9961-CWP of 2020 CWP-17939 of 2015 & CM-10026-CWP of 2020, CWP-16839 of 2015, CWP-14986 of 2016 and CWP-24263 of 2016
Decided On : 09-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Navroop Jawanda, Advocate, and Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate, and Mr. Anubhav Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. J.S.Yadav, Advocate, and Mr. Nihit, Advocate, Mr. Salil Sagar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sankalp Sagar, Advocate, Mr. O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Parul Aggarwal, Advocate, and Ms. Deepika Sood, Advocate, and Mr. Pritish Goel, Advocate, Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sumeet Goel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, and Mr. Aarush Neeraj Vaid, Advocate, Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumeet Goel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate, and Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate, and Ms. Shelly Arora, Advocate, Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate, Mr. Amit Agrawal, Advocate, and Ms. Radhika Yadav, Advocate, and Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Udai Singh, Advocate, for, Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Teevar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Dutt Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Rubina Vermani, Advocate, Mr. Gurinder Pal, Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - Rule 6 and Rule 10 - Seniority of Judges - The court analyzed the inter-se seniority among various categories of judges appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges, addressing the issue of suitable consideration of Fast Track Court Judges amidst Direct Recruit and Promotee Judges. It concluded that statutory rules govern seniority and stipulated that appointment through direct recruitment or ad-hoc service does not confer seniority advantage over other categories. (Para 51)

(B) Recruitment and Absorption - The court reiterated the lack of statutory backing for claims of Fast Track Court Judges for seniority over Direct Recruit Judges based on their appointment process; emphasizing adherence to the 2007 Rules in seeking seniority order. (Para 50)

Facts of the case:
A group of petitions challenged minutes outlining seniority lists of judges from various appointment categories, particularly addressing claims of seniority based on ad-hoc service versus statutory processes—central to the employment landscape in the state judiciary. The petitioners were Fast Track Court Judges seeking acknowledgment against Promotee and Direct Recruit Judges.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the seniority list finalized on 22.10.2013, asserting it aligned with prevailing statutory rules and provisions governing appointments and promotions within the judicial service. It decided against adjusting seniority based on claims of ad-hoc service alone.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the rightful seniority of Fast Track Court Judges vis-a-vis Direct Recruit and Promotee Judges, as determined by the statutory rules and the manner of appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that those promoted on ad-hoc basis cannot claim seniority based on prior service against positions earmarked for other categories and that the 2007 Rules clearly defined seniority positions based on recruitment type. (Paras 10, 41)

Result: The writ petitions were dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to seniority lists (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. legal basis for claims of promotees (Para 4 , 14 , 15)
3. details of appointment processes (Para 5 , 6 , 10)
4. fast track judges and their claims (Para 12 , 13)
5. rules affecting appointment and seniority (Para 16 , 18 , 21)
6. court’s observations on legal arguments (Para 24 , 26 , 30)
7. determining seniority based on rules (Para 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42)
8. final conclusion on dismissal of writ petitions (Para 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. - In this bunch of writ petitions, challenge is to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee dated 12.04.2008 constituted for determining the seniority amongst the Judges appointed from different sources direct recruits, promotees (accelerated) on the basis of having passed the departmental competitive examination, the promotees, as such, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and the Fast Track Court, who have been absorbed in service and as a consequence thereof, the tentative seniority list dated 15.01.2013 and the final seniority list dated 22.10.2013 as issued by the High Court.

Challenge has been posed by the Fast Track Court Judges, who have been kept at the tail end of the seniority list and the Promotee Judges (accelerated), who have been initially appointed on ad-hoc basis because of non-availability of posts in their category/quota and are claiming the benefit of the said service, apart from the challenge that the direct recruits have come at a subsequent stage in service and cannot, thus, be given seniority over and above them. Prayer has been, thus, made for re-determination of the seniority by counting their ad-hoc service. The direct recruit Judges are claiming seniority over and above the Promotee Judges (accelerated) on the basis of their date of appointment being earlier to them.

2. CWP Nos. 16863 and 17939 of 2015 have been preferred by by the Fast Track Court Judges, CWP No. 16839 of 2015 and CWP No. 14986 of 2016 have been preferred by the Promotee Judges (accelerated) and CWP No. 24263 of 2016 has been preferred by Direct Recruit Judges. Keeping in view the nature of the challenge, one writ petition each qua the category of Judges, who had laid challenge to the aforesaid seniority lists and the Minutes of the Meeting is being made as a reference case.

3. As regards the Fast Track Court Judges, CWP No. 16863- 2015 titled as Rajneesh Bansal and another vs. State of Haryana and others, Promotee Judges (accelerated), CWP No. 16839 of 2015 titled as Paramvir Nijjar and another vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others and Direct Recruit Judges, CWP No. 24263 of 2016 titled as Rakesh Kumar Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others are being taken as the lead case for the purpose of referring to the pleadings and the respective stands for putting forth such claims.

4. In CWP No. 16863 of 2015, Rajneesh Bansal's case (supra), it has been pleaded that in pursuance to judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 2096, whereby the Fast Track Courts were directed to be established and the High Courts given the responsibility to make appointments.

5. Applications were invited vide Notification dated 26.05.2003 for appointment as Presiding Officers in the Fast Track Courts in the State of Punjab and in Haryana. Petitioners applied for the said assignment, wherein the requirement was that the candidate should be a practicing Advocate for more than 10 years between the age group of 35-45 years as on 01.01.2003, the appointment was initially for a period of one year, which could be extended by the High Court from time to time. The rules governing the service would be the Haryana Additional District and Sessions Judges (Ad-hoc) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2001 framed for appointment of retired members of the Superior Judicial Services.

6. Interviews were held on 24.11.2003 to 27.11.2003 by a committee of three senior Hon'ble Judges of