IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.12.2024 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Neelam Arora …..Petitioner versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate and Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S.Kalra, Advocate with Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent-High Court.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE The petitioner who is serving as a Judicial Officer being member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services has filed this petition assailing notification dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-8) showing inter-se seniority of officers promoted to the Punjab Superior Judicial Services in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 under the promotee quota as per Rule 7(3)(a) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 (for short ‘Rules of 2007’). The aforesaid challenge is based on the following grounds:-

i) The impugned notification/seniority list (Annexure P-8) does not reflect the name of petitioner, despite petitioner having been promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc/Fast Track Court) vide order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure P-3).

ii) The impugned notification/seniority list (Annexure P-8) reflects the name of private respondents No. 2 to 16 despite the said private respondents having been appointed subsequent to the petitioner as Additional District Judge.

iii) The petitioner is denied the benefit of counting of services rendered as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc/FTC) from April-2009 to 31.03.2011 and from 09.06.2011 till regular promotion as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 02.06.2012, for the purpose of computing seniority in regular cadre of Punjab Superior (Judicial) Services.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties at length, perusing the pleadings on record and the relevant citations relied upon by learned counsel, this Court for the purpose of clarity seeks to delineate the relevant events which took place in the present case in a chronological and tabular manner as follows: -

DATES AND EVENTS

3. Thus the entire submission of learned counsel for petitioner is founded upon counting of services rendered by petitioner as ADJ (FTC) from April-2009 to 31.03.2011 and from 09.06.2011 to 02.06.2012 for the purpose of computing seniority in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge to which petitioner was promoted on 02.06.2012 (Annexure P-7).

4. The question as to whether, the services rendered as ADJ (Adhoc- FTC) while substantively holding post of Chief Judicial Magistrate, can be counted for assigning seniority in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge, is no more res-integra in view of the following decisions of the Apex Court, which have since long settled the said controversy in the following terms:-

i) Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others, 2002(5) SCC 1:-

“10 (14). No right will be conferred on judicial officers in service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his/her appointment on ad hoc basis under the Scheme. The service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre. In case any judicial officer is promoted to higher grade in the parent cadre during his tenure in Fast Track Courts, the service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed to be service in such higher grade.”

ii) Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others, 2012(6) SCC

502:-

“76. Upon an analysis of the above-stated Rules relating to the different States, the appointment letters issued to the appointees and the methodology that was adopted for appointment of the FTC Judges, it becomes clear that the appointees cannot be said to have any legal, much less an indefeasible right to the posts in question. Firstly, the posts themselves were temporary, as they were created under and within the ambit an