The court asserted that under the UPHJS Rules, there is no provision for carrying forward unfilled reserved vacancies into subsequent recruitment years, thus upholding existing appointment processes and seniority rankings.

JUDGMENT :

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, Shri Sudeep Seth, Shri J.N. Mathur, Shri Sanjay Bhasin, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Shri Kshitij Mishra, Shri Shobit Mohan Shukla, Shri Amardeep Yadav, representing the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State/respondent, Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel representing the High Court/respondent and Shri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Shri Shireesh Kumar, Shri Praneet Kumar Agarwal, Shri Sridhar Awasthi, Shri Sanjay Hari Shukla, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Gautam, Shri Vivek Tripathi, Shri Jitendra Saksena, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the private respondents.

(A) Introduction

2. The perennial problem of determination of number of vacancy to be filled from each source of recruitment and its consequential effect on the seniority list has yet again come to haunt the recruitment year 2012 and 2014 for the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services. Although by now these problems ought to have been resolved by the authoritative decision of the Apex Court, however these issues refuses to die down and have a salutary burial.

3. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as “UPHJS Rules 1975”) have been framed to regulate the recruitment, appointment and other conditions of services for Higher Judicial Services appointees in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 5 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 provides for three source of recruitment; the first being (a) by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; the second being (b) by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service; and the third being ( c) by direct recruitment from amongst the learned Advocates of not less than seven years standing on the first day of January next following the year in which the notice inviting applications is published. The conundrum relating to the number of available seats for each source of recruitment in view of the quota prescribed under Rule 6 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 and number of appointment to be made as per Rule 8 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 and the effect of reservation for posts of schedules castes etc. as per Rule 7 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975 and their inter-play, which also had an eventful effect on the seniority list prepared as per Rule 26 of the UPHJS Rules, 1975 had been fascinated by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judicial precedent. Some of these judgments are being enumerated herein-below, so that this Court, while dealing with the issues raised by the parties in the present writ petitions, is alive to these precedents, which holds the ground even as on today:

(i) Sri Kant Tripathi and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others