The Court held that the committee appointed to determine the seniority of direct recruits and promotees to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service had correctly interpreted and applied the Supreme Court's directions in O.P. Garg, and that the seniority list prepared by the committee was valid.

D. S. SINHA, A. K. BANERJI, SUDHIR NARAIN, A. K. CHAKRABARTY AND S. K. PHAUJDAR, JJ.

( 1 ) THE moot point in the above two writ petitions being the same, a challenge to the seniority list dated 6. 5. 1992 for the members of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. the two matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment.

( 2 ) ON the presentation of the petitions, the matters were placed in the usual course before a division Bench and upon its reference of the whole matter to a Full Bench, as per order dated 30. 10. 92, a Full Bench was constituted under the orders of the Honble the Chief Justice of the allahabad High Court, with changes of the Honble Judges constituting the Full Bench from time to time, the matters finally came before us and were heard by us. Arguments on behalf of petitioners in the two matters were advanced by Sri Ravi Kant and Sri Dinesh Dwivedi. Another member of the U. P. Higher Judicial Service (henceforth to be described as the H. J. S.) Sri R. G. Shukla, made a prayer for being heard as an intervener on the ground that his case was identical with that of the petitioners in the two writ petitions as he too had come to the H. J. S. as a direct recruit. The prayer was allowed and Sri R. N. Singh was heard on his behalf. A similar prayer of intervention was made on behalf of Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, another member of the H. J. S. and we had indicated that he could not be inipleaded as a party, but we were ready to hear him under the provisions of Chapter 22, Rule 5a, of the Allahabad High Court Rules. We proposed to hear Sri Tarun Agrawal on behalf of Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, but Sri Agarwal had chosen not to advance any arguments Sri Rajendra Prasad Pandey, respondent No. 55 in the first mentioned writ petition, filed a power through Sri Sudhir Jaiswal on 20. 10. 98 during the course of hearing. He too, was allowed an opportunity of making submissions, but when his turn came, sri Sudhir Jaiswal declined to make any submissions.

( 3 ) THE first mentioned writ petition was filed by five members of the H. J. S. , all direct recruits, and in addition to the State of U. P. and the High Court of Judicature through its Registrar, 53 members of the H. J. S. (all promotees from the U. P. Nyayik Sewa) were arrayed as respondents. The second mentioned writ petition was filed by Sri J. C. Gupta and Sri P. K. Jain, both of whom were directly recruited to the H. J. S. and both are now Honble Judges of the Allahabad High court. In the second mentioned writ petition. In addition to the State of U. P. and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar, 22 others were arrayed as respondents who were all, at the relevant date, members of the H. J. S. , all being promotees from the U. P. Nyayik Sewa. It is interesting to note that not only the two petitioners in the second mentioned writ petition but also a number of respondents in these two matters were now Honble Judges, of the Allahabad high Court or other High Courts. It is also interesting to note that amongst the respondents who have been elevated to the High Court from the HJS. some have already retired and most of them who did not get the opportunity of elevation have also retired from the H. J. S.

( 4 ) AS already indicated, there is a challenge in these writ petitions to the validity of the seniority list prepared on 6. 5. 1992 in terms of directions of the Supreme Court given in its judgment in the case of O. P. Garg, AIR 1991 SC 1202. For appreciating the direction of the Supreme Court and the points raised in challenging the seniority list and the points raised in answer, it is necessary to give a brief description of the background leading to these litigations.

( 5 ) THAT Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service is a service as envisaged under Article 233 of the constitution, comprising of District Judges and Additional District Judges. , Formerly, the service was covered by the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document