Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 11676
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE , CJ, HONOURABLE MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
Dhirendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The Patna High Court through the Registrar General, Patna High Court – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11470 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12592 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14537 of 2022 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16771 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate, Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate, Mr. P.N.Shahi, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Ankit Katriar, Advocate
The court upheld the validity of Explanation (2) to Rule 16(e) of the Bihar Superior Judicial Services Rules, affirming the principle that seniority should be determined based on roster points irrespective of appointment dates, promoting equality in recruitment processes.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Superior Judicial Services Rules, 1951 - Explanation (2) to Rule 16(e) - Seniority amongst Additional District Judges - The precedents indicate seniority between promotees and direct recruits must be assigned based on roster points, irrespective of appointment dates; Explanation (2) introduced to address inequalities due to delays in recruitment. (Paras 13-47)
(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Right to Equality - The Explanation clarifies rules regarding seniority related to recruitment processes in the context of judicial appointments, aiming to uphold fairness and prevent unjust disadvantage to earlier appointees. (Paras 42, 46)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contest the seniority lists prepared by the High Court regarding promotees from various sources, alleging adverse impacts based on delays in direct recruitments and promotions across different years.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Explanation (2) to Rule 16(e) was a valid legislative measure aimed at clarifying seniority rules when recruitment from different sources encounters delays.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the seniority list, particularly concerning the validity of Explanation (2) and its implications on the roster system.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the rationale for the introduction of Explanation (2) was to mitigate inequities arising from recruitment delays and that it worked in consonance with constitutional provisions ensuring equality and fairness in the judicial recruitment process.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed, gradation list upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties are appointed judges with varying backgrounds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges against assignments of seniority under relevant legal provisions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments made by parties regarding interpretations of rules. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's analysis of present litigation matters and corresponding rules. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion drawn from legal precedents on assignments of seniority. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. assertions regarding the precedence of statutory rules in determining seniority. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. decisions elaborating seniority issues under different recruitment settings. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. clarification on interpretation of rules concerning appointments and their effect. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 9. court evaluating challenges to rule amendments and their legal implications. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 10. determination of seniority in accordance with established legal principles. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 11. conclusion that the provision regarding seniority acts within legislative intent. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 12. explanation (2) preserves the integrity of seniority amid recruitment disparities. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 13. final ruling dismissing challenges and affirming the validity of seniority rules. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 13-07-2023
Discordant notes of inter-se seniority imperil harmonious co-existence within a cadre and foster dissonance. It gives rise to rancor among colleagues; especially when the appointments are differently sourced, through direct recruitment and promotions from the feeder categories. The Higher Judicial Services in the various States are no exception, where appointments are from three sources; by promotions from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) (65%), by Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) again from Civil Judge (Senior Division) (10%) and from the Bar by direct recruitment (25%). The petitioners herein are all promotees, those in CWJC Nos. 11470 of 2022 and 12592 of 2022 being the promotees under the 65% quota and those in CWJC Nos. 14537 of 2022 and 16771 of 2022 being the promotees under the 10% quota of LCE. The promotees of the year 2018-19 commonly assail the seniority conferred on the direct recruits appointed in 2018 but to the vacancies that arose in and prior to 2016-2017. Those promoted under the fast-track LCE quota also have inter-se disputes of seniority amongst themselves.
2. On facts it is to be noticed that the notification for direct recruitment was issued on 22.08.2016 (Annexure-P6 in CWJC 14537 of 2022) and the selection notified was to 98 vacancies as on 31.03.2017; which were carried over vacancies of years prior to and including 2016-17. Ninety-six direct recruits were appointed to the substantive posts of Additional District Judges (for brevity ‘ADJs’ hereafter) on 28.05.2018. Two were appointed later on judicial orders on 12.06.2019 and 11.02.2020. Together with these 11 Civil Judges (Senior Division) were promoted against the 65% quota on 22.12.2017 and there was no LCE conducted since all those who were eligible were promoted under the 65% quota. In the very next year of recruitment, promotions under the 65% and the 10% quota were notified on 16.01.2018; the appointments to the substantive posts having been made respectively on 10.12.2018 and 25.03.2019. The persons who were appointed under the 65% and 10% quota in the year 2018 were not qualified to appear in the selection along with the 11 officers earlier appointed with the direct recruits; those under the 65% quota having qualified only in the month of December 2017, when they completed three years in the Senior Division. But for two officers under the LCE; who qualified under both the 65% & 10% quota, the other 16 under the quota for LCE qualified only as on 31.08.2018. As per the gradation list produced and challenged in the writ petitions, the direct recruits were interspersed with the eleven promotees in the selection year 2016-2017 as per the roster points; wh
