1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5518­5523 Of 2017

HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH   ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.        ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10185­10187/2018 (DIARY NO.32341) OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.10176 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.16772 OF 2017), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5513 OF 2017,  CIVIL APPEAL NO.5509 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5525 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5510 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5515­5517 OF 2017, AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.5528­5529 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment

dated 03.03.2017 of Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the Writ Petition No.1056

of 2016 and other connected writ petitions.  

3. The questions which have arisen for determination in this

2

batch of appeals relate to inter se seniority dispute between

three streams of Punjab Superior Judicial Service, i.e.,  

(i) the officers promoted on the basis of

merit­cum­seniority under 50% quota (hereinafter referred to

as “promotees”);

(ii) the direct recruits under 25% quota (hereinafter

referred to as “direct recruits”); and

(iii)officers promoted on the basis of limited

departmental competitive examination under 25% quota (as it

then existed) (hereinafter referred to as “out of turn

promotees”).

4. The members of Punjab Superior Judicial Service had filed

writ petition in the High court challenging the seniority list

dated 24.12.2007 issued by the High Court determining the

inter se seniority of the members of the Punjab Superior

Judicial Service.

5. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has

been questioned by Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh, members of Punjab Superior Judicial Service who

were direct recruits and Superior Judicial Officers who are

promotees under 50% quota. Civil Appeals on behalf of

Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa  and others and Jitender Kaur are the

appeals filed by direct recruits and other appeals are the

3

appeals filed by the promotee officers under 50% quota.  

6. C.A.Nos.5518­5523 of 2017 filed by the High Court are

being treated as leading appeals, reference of pleadings of

which appeals shall be sufficient to decide this batch of

appeals.

Background Facts

7. The Higher Judicial Service of the State of Punjab was

governed by a set of Rules, namely, Punjab Superior Judicial

Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8, as it existed initially, provided

that of the total number of cadre­posts, two­third shall be

manned by promotee officers and one­third by direct recruits.  

8. Rule 12 dealt with seniority which provided that the

seniority, inter se, of the substantive members of the

Service, whether direct recruits or promotee officers, shall

be determined with reference to the respective dates of their

confirmation. On 31.12.1976 Rule 12 was amended providing that

seniority, inter se, of the members of the Service, shall be

determined by the length of continuous service on a post in

the Service irrespective of the date of confirmation.  

9. On 28.01.1991, Rule 8(2) was amended providing that of

the total number of cadre posts, three­fourth shall be manned

by promotee Officers and one­fourth by direct recruits.  

10. This Court in  All India Judges' Association and others

4

vs. Union of India and others, 2002 (4) SCC 247,  on

21.03.2002, after considering Justice Shetty Commission's

report had issued various directions regarding recruitment to

the Higher Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges.

The directions were issued by this Court directing that

recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of

District Judges shall be from  three streams i.e.:

“(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and passing a suitability test;  

(b) 25 per cent 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

(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts. ”

11. This Court further directed that appropriate rules shall

be framed by the High Courts as early as possible in

compliance of the aforesaid directions. The Punjab Superior

Judicial Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2004 were notified

on 15.01.2004 in compliance of judgment of this Court in  All

India Judges' Association case (supra).  It appears that

amendment made in Rules on 15.01.2004 did not fully serve the

purpose nor fully complied with this Court's directions made

5

in  All India Judges' Association(supra), hence, a new set of

rules was framed, namely, the Punjab Superior Judicial Service

Rules, 2007 which were published in the Gazette on 03.09.2007.

The cadre strength of  Punjab Superior Judicial Service before

2007 comprised of 88 posts. The High Court on 14.10.2004 had

made 10 promotions as per unamended Rules on 10 vacancies

which were existing since prior to amendment of Rules on

15.01.2004. On 31.08.2007, total cadre strength was 89, which

was increased to 107 as on 11.10.2007. The process for

recruitment of direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules,

2007 was initiated on 02.02.2008 with the publication of

advertisement. The promotions under 50% quota on the basis of

merit­cum­seniority was affected on 18.02.2008. The

competitive test for limited departmental competitive

examination was held on 18.05.2008 for which process was

initiated on 23.04.2008 by issuance of letter via e­mail. Full

Court on 25.07.2008 approved the recommendations both for

direct recruitment and out of turn promotion, by two separate

letters i.e. letter No.628 dated 29.07.2008 the recommendation

of direct recruitment and by letter No.629 dated 29.07.2008

recommendation for out of turn promotion were sent to the

Government. The appointment letters in reference to limited

competitive examination were received earlier then those of

6

direct recruits. On 14.08.2008, Governor of Punjab issued

Office Order whereby eight Officers were promoted under out of

turn quota, posting with regard to whom was issued on

22.10.2008. The Governor of Punjab had issued letter for

direct recruits on 28.11.2008 with regard to whom posting

order dated 08.12.2008 was issued. Fifteen Officers were

promoted under 50% quota, eight Officers were promoted under

out of turn promotion quota 25%. Twelve direct recruits were

appointed vide order dated 08.12.2008. The process of

recruitment of all the three streams was thus completed in the

same year and Officers of the three streams   joined their

respective posts in the year 2008 itself although on different

dates. The promotees got joining first followed by out of turn

promotees and lastly by direct recruits. This Court in  All

India Judges Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and

Ors., 2010 (15) SCC 170,  reduced the out of turn promotion

quota from 25% to 10% which was to take effect from

01.01.2011. The High Court initiated the process of fixation

of inter se seniority of the officers of two streams in the

year 2014. A tentative seniority list was prepared and

circulated by the Registrar of the High Court on 25.09.2014 to

the members of Superior Judicial Service. Various objections

to the list were filed including the objections by direct

7

recruits as well as officers promoted under the out of turn

quota. The Judges' Committee submitted a report after

considering the objections recommending that tentative

seniority list determined does not require any modification or

alteration and the same may be finalised. The report of the

Committee was accepted by Full Court on 22.12.2015. A

notification dated 24.12.2015 was issued publishing the inter

se seniority of the members of Punjab Superior Judicial

Service, promoted, appointed, absorbed in the year 2008. From

serial Nos.1 to 14 in the list were the promotee Officers,

from serial Nos.15 and 16 were direct recruits, from serial

Nos.17 to 24 were promotee officers through limited

departmental examination and from serial Nos.25 to 35 were

direct recruits.  

12. Writ Petition No.1056 of 2016, was filed by   Kanwaljit

Singh Bajwa and two others praying for following reliefs:

i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned Seniority List dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P­1) issued by respondent No.2;

ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to redraw and reframe seniority list by showing the petitioners over and above the respondent Nos.3 to 5;

iii) To say the operation of the impugned seniority list 24.12.2015(P­1) and stay the further promotion of the respondents in furtherance of the impugned

8

seniority list;

iv) To any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice;

v) To dispense with the issuance of advance notices to the respondents;

vi) Exempt the petitioner from filing the certified & typed copies for the Annexures;

vii) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

13. Writ Petition No.1209 of 2016 was filed by Jatinder Kaur,

direct recruit, challenging the seniority list dated

24.12.2015. Similarly Writ Petition No.1057 of 2016 was filed

by Jatinder Pal Singh Khurmi and others challenging the

seniority list. Writ Petition No.2335 of 2016 was filed by

Virinder Aggarwal & another,  who were out of turn promotees.

They also challenged the seniority list dated 24.12.2015.

Their prayers in the writ petition were to the following

effect:

“i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Tentative Seniority List dated 25.09.2014 (AnnexureP­1), the Report dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P­4) and the decision of the Full Court dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P­5) and consequently directing the official respondents to frame a fresh seniority list of the Officers belonging to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service having been appointed in the year 2008 in accordance with law and specially

9

by implementing the roster and for the grant of all consequential benefits flowing therefrom viz. continuity of service, antedated promotions, arrears of pay, interest thereon etc.;

ii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;

iii) exempt the petitioners from service of the advance notices upon the respondents;

iv) exempting the petitioners from filing the certified copies of the annexures;

v) costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.”

14. Another Writ Petition No.1983 of 2016 was filed by Munish

Singal and two others who were direct recruits challenging

seniority list dated 24.12.2015. In the   writ petitions

affected parties were impleaded. The High Court through

Registrar filed written statement in Writ Petition No.1056 of

2016. Promotees also filed their written statement in Writ

Petition No.1056 of 2016. The Division Bench heard the

parties. All the writ petitions were decided by a common

judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment

had noticed the submission of the parties, the report of the

Committee. In paragraph 102 of the judgment the High Court has

observed that the Committee had framed eight issues. The eight

issues framed by the Committee as noticed in paragraph 102 are

10

as follows:

"(1) Whether the promotions dated 19.02.2008 made under Rule 7(3)(a) are liable to be termed as irregular or 'ad­hoc', and if so, to what effect ?

(2) Whether the posts meant for the 'out­of­turn promotion' under Rule 7(3)(b) which remained unfilled as   no competitive examination took place from the year 2004 to 2008, can be included in 'promotion quota' under Rule 7(3)(a), and if not, to which quota such posts shall stand diverted ?

(3) Whether promotions made on 19.2.2008 under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess to the 'promotion quota', and if so, what is the effect on seniority of such excess promotions?

(4) Whether promoted officers irrespective of Rule 7(3)(a) or (b) are entitled to the 'weightage' of their service rendered in PCS (Judicial Branch) towards seniority in Superior Judicial Service in view of second proviso to Rule 23 of 2007 Rules ?

(5) Whether the direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c) could be assigned seniority from the date their names were recommended by the High Court fro appointment ?

(6) Whether officers absorbed from Fast Track Courts are liable to be treated as 'ex gratia appointees', and if so, what is the effect in law and what would be their 'deemed date of appointment'? (7) Whether Roster (Appendix 'B') can be read into and applied to the Rule of seniority ?

(8) Whether Mr. Arunvir Vashista is entitled to be absorbed as ADJ w.e.f. 24.6.2008 or he be placed at Sr.No.1 amongst the out­of­turn promotees in view of para 146(13) of the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal­II ?”

15. The Division Bench further noticed that in the writ

petition arguments were addressed relating to Issue

11

Nos.1,2,3,5 and 7. The High Court held that promotees were in

excess, hence, promotions made shall be treated in excess of

quota and they shall take seniority on the date post is

available in their quota. The High Court further held that the

date of recommendation of direct recruits cannot be treated

the date for the purpose of seniority. On applicability of

roster in determination of seniority, the High Court

categorically held that roster shall be applicable in

determining the seniority as per Rules, 2007. The vacancies

under Rule 7(1)(b) shall shift to Rule 7(1)(a) only with

effect from 01.01.2011. The writ petitions were allowed and

operative portion of judgment is contained in paragraph 208

which is to the following effect:

"208. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 24.12.2015 is set aside. It is held that:

(i) promotion of officers under Rule 7(3)(a) [Regular promotion] of the 2007 Punjab Rules is held to be beyond quota, hence, ad hoc. They will  not be  entitled to  get  benefit  of  that service for the purpose of seniority;

(ii) direct recruits shall not be entitled to be considered as members of the cadre from the date of their recommendation by the High Court to the State, for appointment;

(iii) as a consequence, the officers promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) of the 2007 Punjab Rules shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority after the direct recruits.

12

The seniority list be re­cast accordingly.”

16. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the

High Court, the High Court has filed Civil Appeal Nos.5518­23

of 2017.

17. Civil Appeals of Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa and others and

Civil Appeal of Jatinder Kaur, two Civil Appeals by direct

recruits, other Civil Appeals have been filed by promotee

Officers whose promotions were treated to be ad hoc and are

directed to be placed at the bottom of the seniority. Out of

turn promotees had not challenged the judgment, since, the

judgment of the High court was substantially in their favour.  

SUBMISSIONS

18. Shri Raju Ramachandran and Shri Ajit Sinha, learned

senior counsel have appeared for the High Court. Shri Dushyant

Dave and Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel have

appeared  for  promotees. Shri  P.S.  Patwalia, learned senior

counsel, has appeared for out of turn promotees. Shri Nidhesh

Gupta, learned senior counsel has appeared for direct

recruits. In addition, we have also heard several counsel in

this batch of appeals appearing for different parties.  

19. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing

for the High Court submits that seniority list prepared by the

13

High Court pursuant to the acceptance of Judges' Committee

Report by Full Court was in accordance with Rules, 2007 and

promotees had   first joined the post and when the promotees

joined post of District Judge cadre, neither direct recruits

nor out of turn promotees were born in the cadre.  

20. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for

regular promotees submits that they have completed five years

of service in the year 2000 but neither any Rules were framed

nor any examination was held. When the quota is to be followed

due to the judgment of this Court, the promotees cannot be

pushed down. No examination was held for effecting promotion

under Rule 7(3)(b) hence promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) were

entitled to have the quota meant for Rule 7(3)(b), continuous

officiation in service is the Rule to be followed for

determination of seniority, Full Court and Administrative

Committee has taken correct view of the matter. The officers

desirous to compete, ought to have approached the High court

praying that examination to be held. The High Court did not

hold any suitability test for promotion of the officers under

Rule 7(3)(a) for which promotees cannot be made to suffer. The

challenge to promotion cannot be allowed to be raised at the

time of determination of seniority. The roster provided in

Appendix B to the Rules, 2007 is only for the purpose of

14

recruitment and has no application for determination of

seniority. Had the competitive examination for out of turn

promotees held in  February, 2008, promotees would have also

appeared and would have succeeded in the examination. The

appointment having not made in time, quota rule is broken

down. The promotees having been promoted on regular basis even

if they are in excess of quota, their services have to be

considered, the appointment of promotees is not an ad hoc

appointment, hence, entire service rendered by promotees is to

be reckoned for seniority.  

21. Shri K.V. Viswanathan submits that assumption that

promotees are in excess of their quota is not correct. Rules,

2004 and roster introduced by Rules, 2007 has to be

prospective. Computation has to be on 43 vacancies which were

existing vacancies and not cadre strength of 107. In

accordance with 43 vacancies the quota for promotees will be

22, out of turn promotees will be 10 and direct recruits will

be 11. The roster has no application for determination for

seniority. Assuming that Appendix B applies, it is for quota

and since examination has not been held in time the quota has

broken down.  

22. Shri P.S. Patwalia appearing for out of turn promotees

submits that whole argument made by the promotees is

15

misconceived. The diversion of quota under Rule 7(3)(b) to

7(3)(a) shall take place only when test is held and no

suitable  candidate  is  available for appointment under  Rule

7(3)(b). The quota applied to the post in service. The High

Court has wrongly applied the quota to the vacancies. 25%

quota was introduced as incentive to improve meritorious

officers. On date of selection, 53 were promotees who were

excess to their quota, 14 were filled by direct recruits and

there were no vacancies for the regular promotees. There being

no conscious decision of diversion of quota under Rule 7(3)(b)

to 7(3)(a), no benefit can be claimed by the promotees. The

clubbing of vacancies under Rule 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) is not

permissible. The out of turn promotees have never challenged

the merit promotion.  

23. Shri Patwalia submits that roster is not applicable to

the seniority. When the quota is worked out in the cadre

strength there is no vacancy under Rule 7(3)(a) but 15

promotions have been affected their promotion is not in

accordance with law. Whether they would have taken test or not

is realm of conjecture, if we construe Rule 23 of Rules, 2007

and Punjab Civil Services (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994

harmoniously the seniority has to be on the strength of length

of service. Referring to Haryana Service Rules, Shri Patwalia

16

contends that in Haryana Service Rules roster has been made as

part of seniority whereas in Punjab Service Rules it is not

so. He submits that the High Court has made very equitable

decision which needs no interference.  

24. Shri Nidhesh Gupta appearing for direct recruits submits

that this Court in  All India Judges' Association case

(supra) has introduced roster in seniority for the purposes to

minimise inter se dispute of seniority in the Higher Judicial

Service. The judgment of this Court in  All India Judges'

Association case  has to be given effect by the High Court.

Rules, 2007 has to be interpreted in the light of the judgment

of this Court in   All India Judges' Association case,  which

directions resulted in Amendment Rules, 2004 and Rules, 2007.

Out of turn promotees in their writ petitions have prayed for

applying the roster for determination of seniority. The High

Court although in the body of judgment held that roster is

applicable in seniority but in operative portion the said

conclusion is not reflected which had rendered the judgment of

the High Court erroneous. The roster having been accepted as

applicable for purposes of seniority, seniority list has to be

drawn as per roster. It is submitted that process of

recruitment initiated on 2nd February, 2008 whereas promotions

and out of turn promotions were held thereafter.   It is

17

submitted that recommendations sent to the Government on the

same day but appointment letter for direct recruits were

received later which will have no effect on the seniority that

is the direct recruits which have to be made as per the

roster. Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of Rules, 2007 makes it

clear that appointment has to be made as per roster which

clearly means that seniority will follow the appointment. In

the writ petition filed before the High Court, out of turn

promotees have categorically taken stand that roster is

relevant for the purpose of seniority. The out of turn

promotees cannot be allowed to take contrary stand before this

Hon'ble Court. The fortuitous circumstances i.e. when letter

of appointments were issued cannot be basis for seniority.

Accepting the contention that length of service should

determine the seniority and not the roster, shall be defeating

the All India Judges Association's judgment of this Court as

well as Rules, 2007. Rules, 2007 specially Rule 7, Rule 12,

Rule 23 read with Appendix B have to be construed in a manner

so to advance the object of Rules and should be interpreted in

a manner so that   no prejudice is caused to any member of

Service.  

25. Learned counsel for the parties have also referred to

various judgments of this Court which shall be referred to

18

while considering the submissions in detail.  

DISCUSSION

26. The subordinate judiciary of this Country is back bone of

our judicial system. It is the subordinate judiciary which

comes in contact with the common man   in administration of

justice. This Court in  All India Judges' Association (supra)

has noticed that the weight on the judicial system essentially

rests on the subordinate judiciary. In paragraph 27 following

was observed:

“27....The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary.....”

27. The enormous responsibility which is shouldered by

subordinate judiciary demands respectable conditions of

service and fulfillment of the due aspirations and

expectations of the officers manning the judicial system. The

seniority in service plays  a very important and vital role in

service career of an incumbent. Promotions, different

perquisites and benefits follow seniority. It is, thus, very

important that due claims of seniority of members of Superior

Judicial Service are recognised and implemented by all those

on whose shoulder the responsibility of determination and

19

implementation lies. This Court by its direction in  All

India Judges' Association case (supra)  has required uniform

procedure for recruitment and rules for determination of

seniority with the object of achieving a uniformity and a

certainty to minimise the inter se seniority dispute as far as

possible. Thus, before we proceed to consider the respective

submissions of the parties it is pertinent to refer  to the

judgment of this Court in  All India Judges' Association case

which is foundation of Service Rules, 2007 and throws light on

different aspects of higher judicial service.

28. As noticed above, 1963 Rules contained provisions for

filling the post of Superior Judicial Service only by two

methods, by promotion from Punjab Service and by direct

recruitment. Initially the total number of cadre posts

two­third were manned by promotion and one­third direct

recruits which was changed on 28.1.1991 as three­fourth by

promotions and one­fourth by direct recruits.  

29. In different States there were different Rules for

recruitment in Judicial Service. Justice Shetty Commission

took up the whole breadth and length of Judicial Service, its

service conditions, perks and all aspects of the matter. On

21.03.1996 pursuant to direction of this Court, Government of

India by a Resolution constituted a First Judicial Commission

20

under the Justice Shetty. Justice Shetty Commission has

submitted its report on 11.11.1999 touching various aspects of

Judicial Service. State and Union Territories were sent report

asking their response. One of the questions which fell for

consideration before the Justice Shetty Commission was method

of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. In  All India

Judges' Association case (supra)  this Court held that it is

imperative for the Judicial Officer to keep abreast of

knowledge of law. This Court also held that there has to be

certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers

who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional

District Judges and District Judges. In paragraph 27 of the

judgment following was laid down:

 “27....It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a judicial academy which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standards, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the higher judicial service as Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the higher judicial service i.e., the District Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and  viva voce, we  are  of the  opinion that  there should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the higher judicial service. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to

21

improve  and  to compete  with  each other so  as  to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the caliber of the members of the higher judicial service will further improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the higher judicial service is maintained, we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per cent of the total post in the higher judicial services must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority. For this purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental competitive examination for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (senior division) should be not less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard. ”

30. In paragraph 28 directions were issued by this Court to

the following effect:

“28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to the High Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:

(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and passing a suitability test;  

(b) 25 per cent 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

(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by

22

direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts.

(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible.”

31. This Court has noticed the serious discontentment

regarding inter se seniority of members of Higher Judicial

Service. This Court observed that the least amount of

litigation in the country is there where quota system in

recruitment exists and where a roster system is followed.

Following was laid down in paragraph 29:

“29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the members of the higher judicial service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three decades, large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative seniority from the officers recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotees and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to higher judicial service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 percent by following the principle "merit­cum­seniority" 25 percent strictly on merit by limited departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in recruitment exists, in so far as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40­point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a

23

person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising. The 40­point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab[1995]2 SCC 745. One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40­point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case (supra) as early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof, there would be no further dispute in the fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the higher judicial service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31­3­2003. ”

32. In pursuance of judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2002

Rules, 1963 were amended in 2004 by Punjab Superior Judicial

Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2004 where for existing Rules

following Rules have been substituted:

"8. Recruitment to Service.­ Recruitments to the Service shall be made in the following manner:­

(a) fifty per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of merit­cum­seniority and passing a suitability test;

(b) twenty five per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited

24

departmental competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service;

(c) twenty five per cent by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates by holding a test consisting of written examination of 200 marks and  viva voce  test of 50 marks to be conducted by the High Court”.

33. Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 were framed

and notified in Gazette on 3rd  September, 2007. Rule 7 dealt

with method of appointment which is to the following effect:

“7.  Method of appointment.  — (1) The appointment to the Service by promotion shall be made from amongst the members of the Punjab Civil Service(Judicial Branch), by the Governor on the recommendations of the High Court.

(2) The direct appointment to the Service shall be made by the Governor on the recommendations of the High Court from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written test and viva­voce conducted by the High Court.

(3) Appointment to the Service shall be made in the following manner :­

(a) fifty per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division), on the basis of merit­cum­seniority and passing of a suitability test ;

(b) twenty­five per cent by promotion on the basis of merit through departmental competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying Service as Civil Judge (Senior Division); and

(c) twenty­five per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct appointment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written

25

test and viva­voce, as conducted by the High Court.

Explanation. — For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b), it is clarified that the qualifying service for promotion should be either on the post of Civil Judge(Senior Division) or Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) separately or by clubbing the service on any of the said posts.

(4) These posts shall be filled in accordance with the Roster attached as Appendix­B.”

34. Rule 12 dealt with seniority in the following manner:

“12.Seniority.—(1)The original seniority of the promotee officers promoted from amongst the members of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch), shall not be disturbed.  (2) The inter se seniority of the out­of­turn promoted officers shall be in the order of merit as is determined by the High Court.

(3) The inter se seniority of the direct appointees shall be on the basis of merit as is determined by the High Court :

Provided further that an officer, who is promoted on ad hoc basis on a vacant post, belonging to the out­of­turn promotee officers or direct appointees, as the case may be, shall not have any right on the said post and such officer shall not be allowed to claim addition of the period of such ad hoc service towards the Service for the purpose of seniority.”

35. Rule 23 dealt with application of the Punjab Civil

Services  (General  and  Common  Conditions of  Service) Rules,

1994 in respect of the matters, which are not specifically

provided in these rules. Rule 23 is as follows:

26

“23. Application of the Punjab Civil Services (General and  Common Conditions of Service Rules, 1994. — (1) In respect of the matters, which are not specifically provided in these rules, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as amended from time to time:

Provided that the said rules of 1994 shall not affect the provisions as contained in rules 5, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 21 of these rules :  

Provided further that the conditions of service as determined by the National Judicial Pay Commission shall have an over riding effect.  

(2) The Punjab Civil Services (General and Commons Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, at present, in force are contained in Appendix `E'.”

36. Appendix 'B' provided for roster as referred to in Rules,

2007.

37. As noticed above in the present matter recruitments for

all the three streams as enumerated in Rule 7(3)(a), (b) and

(c) were completed in 2008 and all incumbent also joined their

post in 2008. The dispute is regarding inter se seniority of

above three streams. From the submissions of learned counsel

for the parties and pleadings on record following are main

issues  which have arisen for consideration in this batch of

appeals:

(1) Whether promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a),

27

15 in numbers who were promoted and joined their post in

February, 2008 were: (a) in excess to their quota, (b)

their appointment has to be treated as ad hoc

appointment, (c) they have to be placed at the bottom of

seniority.

(2) Whether appointment to members of Superior

Judicial Service belonging to all three streams have to

be made on the basis of roster as per Rule 7(4) read with

Appendix B of the Rules, 2007.

(3) Whether for determination of inter se seniority

belonging to all the three streams has to be based on the

basis of roster in pursuance of Rule 7 read with Appendix

B.

(4) How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges

is to be determined who were earlier working as Fast

Track Judges and have been absorbed and taken in regular

cadre in different stream under Rule 7(3)(a), (b) and

(c).

(5) Reliefs, if any.

Issue No.1:  Whether promotees are in excess of their quota?

38. The High Court in its impugned judgment has noticed the

cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial Service as 107 on

28

10.11.2007.   The Promotion quota under Rule 7(3)(a) was

determined as 53 and actual working having been found as 58.

High Court noticed that 05 officers were working in excess.

25 per cent quota under Rule 7(3)(b) was determined as 27,

which was found to be vacant.   Direct recruits were also

determined as 21 excluding the officers in position.  14 posts

were advertised for direct recruitment.   One of the issues

raised is as to whether for determination of the quota cadre

strength has to be looked into or quota has to be determined

on the basis of vacancies by bifurcating vacancies as per

respective quota.  The issue is no more res integra.  In All

India Judges Case (supra), this Court in Para 29 has held “One

of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about

certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation

to posts and not in relation to the vacancies”. A Three Judge

Bench of this Court in  Srikant Roy and Others Vs. State of

Jharkhand and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 457  while determining

question of number of vacancies in respect of limited

competitive examination of Jharkhand as in Jharkhand Superior

Judicial Service has held that “cadre strength is always

measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre and the

percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number

of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the

29

vacancy that would occur.   Following was laid down in

Paragraph 24:­

“24.  The High Court has overlooked the distinction between “post” and “vacancy”. If the requisite posts were already exhausted by the direct recruits against the earmarked quota for direct recruitment, merely because some vacancies occur, it would not be open to the aspiring candidates against the direct recruit quota to challenge the selection process commenced for the in­service judicial officers by promotion through limited competitive examination. The cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the vacancy that would occur…………………………….”

39.  The High Court Committee determined the vacancies for all

the three streams for 2008 recruitment on the basis of cadre

strength of 107.  Working strength before 2008 selection was

58 promotees, 0 out of turn promotion and 6 direct recruits.

Thus, 64 officers were in position and their were 43 vacancies

for 2008 recruitment.   High Court determining vacancies for

Rule 7(3)(a) as 15, for Rule 7(3)(b) as 8 and 14 for direct

recruitment.   In the impugned judgment, the High Court has

taken a view that since 50 per cent of 107 cadre strength

comes as 53, 5 promotee officers were in excess, since working

strength before 2008 selection was 58.  The above calculation

has been arrived by determining 50 per cent of 107.  Whether

30

any fallacy is committed by the High Court in above

determination is to be examined.   On face of it, the

determination on mathematical calculation, i.e. taking 50 per

cent of cadre strength for promotees come to 53.   Thus,

whether 5 officers, who were found in excess were in excess of

their quota is one part of question and the other part of

question would be that what number of vacancies have to be

earmarked for out of turn promotees under Rule 7(3)(b).   We

have already noticed that from 28.01.1991, Rule 8 was amended

providing for three­fourth of the cadre to be filled up by

promotee officers and one­fourth by direct recruits.   The

above position continues till Rules were amended in 2004 under

the direction of this court in All India Judges case (supra).

40.  For the first time by amending Punjab Superior Judicial

Service on 15.01.2004, the promotion quota under Rule 8 was

fixed as 50 per cent, 25 per cent for limited departmental

competitive examination and 25 per cent for direct recruits

and as far as for direct recruits, earlier 25 per cent was

maintained.  Thus, the issue was only with regard to quota for

promotion on the basis of merit­cum­seniority and of out of

turn promotees.  This Court in All India Judges case (supra)

in Para 29 has clearly directed that the system which was

directed to be put in place by this Court vide Paras 27, 28

31

and 29 was to apply prospectively.   This Court had directed

that appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High

Courts and approved by the States, wherever necessary by 31st

March, 2003.  Upto 2004, the quota for promotion on the basis

of merit­cum­seniority was 75 per cent, the cadre strength as

on 13.09.2007 was 89, which was increased on 10.11.2007 as

107.  After the amendment of Rules on 15.01.2004, promotion of

10 officers were made.  It is mentioned in the Civil Appeal of

the High Court that cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial

Service before 2004 was 88.  Thus, in the year 2004, when the

cadre strength was 88, 75 per cent posts were to be manned by

promotees under merit­cum­seniority, i.e. 66 were to be manned

by promotee officers.  The judgment of this Court in All India

Judges case (supra) being prospective, the ratio of officers

as existing before unamended rules can not be adversely

affected.  A promotee before the amendment of Rules, 2004, who

was well within their quota, suddenly cannot go out of their

quota and become an excess merely on the strength of amendment

of Rules, which are prospective in nature.   For determining

the quota, the cadre strength, which existed prior to amended

rules and subsequent to the amended rules have to be treated

differently.  Promotees quota, which was 75 per cent prior to

2004 Rules makes 66 posts in their quota as before amendment

32

dated 15.01.2004, when the cadre strength has been increased

from 89 to 107, 18 posts have to be further added to the

cadre.  This increase having been made after the amendment of

the Rules dated 15.01.2004, on this cadre strength, the Rules

as amended will be applied for bifurcation of quota.  On 18

newly created posts, 50 percent comes to 9, for out of turn

promotees 4.5 and for direct recruits 4.5.   Thus promotee

officers on or after the increase of the cadre could have been

66+9 i.e. 75.  In the appeal filed by the High Court, it is

also indicated that 10 promotees were affected in October,

2004 under 50 per cent quota of merit­cum­seniority.   The

rules providing 25 per cent quota for out of turn promotion

being in place, at­least few vacancies ought to have been

given to the out of turn promotees.  There is no details of

any further promotion or appointment made after 2004 to 2008.

The out of turn promotion quota having been culled out only as

per the judgment of this Court in  All India Judges case

(supra), which was to be required in the Rules by the State,

the said quota will come into existence only prospectively.

An out of turn promotee cannot claim that they should be given

25 per cent posts of the cadre strength right from day one.

It is true that quota has to be determined on the basis of

cadre strength but determination of the cadre strength has to

33

be made taking into consideration that rules amended w.e.f.

15.01.2004 were prospective in nature and cannot impair or

affect any right, which accrued to the member of judicial

service prior to the amendment of the Rules.   

41.  We, thus, do not find any patent error in the calculation

of the vacancy by the High court in the administrative side

and consequently  the  recruitment  made  from  three  different

streams was well within such determination and cannot be

faulted.  The promotion of officers under Rule 7(3)(a) was in

accordance with the rules and there is no question of treating

the promotion to be adhoc promotion nor they can be pushed to

the bottom of seniority.  The new set of rules, the new scheme

of recruitment, new rules of determination of seniority as

brought in place by 2007 Rules, its implementation has to be

done with care so as not to defeat any existing right.

Mechanical application of the rules, which may result to

unjust result has to be avoided to advance the scheme of the

new rules and the object which were delineated by this Court

in All India Judges case (supra).   While allocating posts to

be filled by different streams, cadre strength, officers of

particular stream in position, quota of each stream has to be

kept in mind.   The vacancies existing for recruitment in

particular year has not to be mechanically divided at the

34

ratio of 50, 25 and 25 per cent.  

Issue Nos. 2 and 3:

Whether appointment to members of Superior Judicial Service belonging to all three streams have to be made on the basis of roster as per Rule 7(4) read with  Appendix B of the Rules, 2007? and

Whether for determination of inter se seniority belonging to all the three streams has to be based on the basis of roster in pursuance of Rule 7 read with Appendix B?

42.   One of the major area of difference in submissions

advanced by learned counsel appearing for the promotees,

direct recruits and out of turn promotees is regarding

applicability of roster for determination of seniority.  In so

far the stand of out of turn promotees is concerned, although

before the High Court in its pleadings and submissions, out of

turn promotees prayed for implementation of roster in

seniority but in this Court they have taken a somersault and

are now contending that the roster is not applicable in

seniority.  

43.   Rota and quota in service jurisprudence is well known

concept, which finds reflected in large number of service

rules of different services.   Quota between promotees and

directs were throughout present in 1963 Rules, which has been

further amplified in 2007 Rules. This Court in in  All India

Judges case (supra)  has highlighted the importance and the

35

usefulness of roster system.  In Para 29, it was held:

“Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in recruitment exists, insofar as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed”. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40­point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the members of the service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising. The 40­point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in  R.K. Sabharwal  v.  State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745.”

44.   The Rules, 2007 has been amended by direction of this

Court in in All India Judges case (supra).  Now, coming back

to the Rules, 2007, there are two rules, which need to be

interpreted to find out real purpose and intent of 2007 Rules.

Rule 7 as noted above provides for method of recruitment,

sub­rule(3) provides for appointment to the service shall be

made 50 per cent by promotion on the basis of

merit­cum­seniority, 25 per cent by promotion on the basis of

merit through departmental competitive examination of Civil

Judges (Senior Division) and 25 percent of posts shall be

filled by direct recruitment.   Sub­clause (4), which is

relevant provides “these posts shall be filled in accordance

with the Roster attached as Appendix­B”.  Part of Appendix­B,

36

which is relevant for the present case is as follows (only

part is quoted):­

“APPENDIX ‘B’ [See sub­rule(4) of rule 7]

ROSTER ROSTER INDICATING THE MODE OF RECRUITMENT

Serial No.

Source Rule

1. Officer Promoted on the  basis of  seniority­cum­suitability

7(3)(a)

2. Officer promoted on the  basis of  seniority­cum­suitability

7(3)(a)

3. Direct Recruit from the Bar 7(3)(c) 4. Officer promoted through  

limited competitive  examination

7(3)(b)

5. Officer promoted on the  basis of  seniority­cum­suitability

7(3)(a)

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 89. Officer promoted on the  

basis of  seniority­cum­suitability.

7(3)(a)

45.  Sub­rule (4) uses the phrase “the posts shall be filled”.

The word “filled” means appointment on the post.   The

submission of the learned counsel for the promotees is that

sub­rule(4) read with Appendix­B at best can be read that

roster is to be followed in recruitment only and not for

determination of seniority.  When an order for filling up of a

post is provided in Appendix­B, the purpose and object is that

officers of different streams should hold the posts in the

37

sequence, which is provided in Appendix­B.  The recruitment to

the different streams consists of different and separate

processes, few processes may take lesser time like effecting

promotion under Rule 7(3)(a) whereas few processes like direct

recruitment under 7(3)(c) takes greater time.   For direct

recruits, which is an All India Competitive Written Test,

large number of candidates participate and evaluation of

answer  sheets  and  holding  viva­voce takes  sufficient  time.

The object as incapsulated by this Court in All India Judges

case (supra)  in carrying recruitment by roster was with the

object of eliminating disputes pertaining to determination of

seniority.  The Rule 7(4) and Appendix­B has to be read in a

manner so as to advance the object of the Rules.  When this

court directed for adopting roster system for determining

seniority, Rules, 2007 cannot be interpreted in a manner which

may violate the direction of this Court.  Article 141 of the

Constitution provides that law declared by the Supreme Court

shall be binding on all courts and authorities.   In this

reference, it is useful to refer to a Three Judge Bench

judgment of this Court in O.P. Singla and Another Vs. Union of

India and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 450, this Court had occasion to

consider the issue of seniority and promotion in context of

temporary promotee, direct recruits quota rules in respect of

38

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.  This Court in Para

17 held that when a Rule or Section is part of integral

scheme, it should not be considered or construed in isolation.

In paragraph 17, following has been held:­

“17……………However, it is well recognised that, when a rule or a section is a part of an integral scheme, it should not be considered or construed in isolation. One must have regard to the scheme of the fasciculus of the relevant rules or sections in order to deter­ mine the true meaning of any one or more of them. An isolated consideration of a provision leads to the risk of some other inter­related provision becoming otiose or devoid of meaning. That makes it necessary to call attention to the very next rule, namely, Rule 8. It provides by clause 2 that:

“The seniority of direct recruits vis­a­vis promotees shall be determined in the order of rotation of vacancies  between the direct re­ cruits and promotees  based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for both categories by Rule 7  provided that the first available va­ cancy will be filled by a direct recruit and the next  two  vacancies  by  promotees and so on.”

(emphasis supplied)

This provision leaves no doubt that the overall scheme of the rules and the true intendment of the proviso to Rule 7 is that one­third of the substan­ tive posts in the Service must be reserved for direct recruits. Otherwise, there would neither be any occa­ sion nor any justification for rotating vacancies be­ tween direct recruits and promotees. Rule 8(2), which deals with fixation of seniority amongst the members of the Service, provides, as it were, a key to the interpretation of the proviso to Rule 7 by saying that the proviso prescribes “quotas” and reserves va­ cancies for both categories. The language of the pro­ viso to Rule 7 is certainly not felicitous and is un­ conventional if its intention was to prescribe a

39

quota for direct recruits. But the proviso, as I have stated earlier, must be read along with Rule 8(2) since the two provisions are interrelated. Their com­ bined reading yields but one result, that the proviso prescribes a quota of one­third for direct recruits.”

46.  One submission, which was pressed by learned counsel for

the promotees as well as by learned counsel appearing for the

out of turn promotees was that in 2007 itself, Judicial

Service Rules have been framed for Haryana namely, Haryana

Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, in which Rules, it was

expressly provided by Rule 10 of the Rules that  inter se

seniority of the persons recruited to the service under clause

(a), (b) and (c) of Rule 6 shall take his position in the

seniority list as shown in roster annexed. Rule 10 of the

Haryana Rules is as follows:­

“10. Seniority.  (i)(a) The inter se seniority of the members of the

Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) promoted  in  the  same  batch  under  rule 6(a) shall be the same as in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch).

(b) Inter se seniority of the member of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service promoted under rule 6(b) shall be in the order of merit determined in the selection process.  

(c) Inter se seniority of the direct recruits to the Service under rule 6(c) shall be on the basis of merit determined by the Selection Committee of the High Court at the time of the recruitment.

40

(d) Inter se seniority position of the officers appointed in the Service under rule 6 shall be as given in roster annexed.

(ii) A person recruited to the Service under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 6 shall take his position in the seniority list as shown in the roster annexed irrespective of the date on which he actually joins the Service.

(iii) A promoted officer, who is promoted on an ad hoc basis in the vacancy/post against a roster point earmarked for an officer belonging to categories specified in clauses (b) and (c) of rule 6, shall not have any right to the post. He shall not be entitled to add period of his ad hoc service to regular service for the purpose of seniority:

Provided that the existing rules shall continue to govern the matters of seniority of the existing members of the Service.”

47.  It has been pointed out that both Judicial Service Rules,

2007 of Haryana and Punjab Superior Judicial Rules, 2007 were

sent by the High Court in the similar fashion, where Punjab

Rules have been published by the Government by changing the

proposed rules pertaining to seniority without consultation of

the High Court.  The High Court in its impugned judgment in

Para 181 after noticing the Haryana Rules, 6, 7, 8 and 9 has

made following observations:­

“Similar rules were recommended by the High Court to the State of Punjab for notification but changed at its own level without consultation with High Court.”  

48.  In the present case, we need not enter into the issue as

41

to what was proposed and what changes were made by Government

while notifying the rules.   The above observation in the

impugned judgment clearly indicate that Punjab & Haryana High

Court has contemplated to implement the direction of this

Court in All India Judges case (supra) and it was clear to the

High Court that the appointment of all the three streams as

per roster is to also determine the seniority as per the

roster.  In any view of the matter, there is nothing in the

Rules – Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which

may indicate that there is any provision contrary to

determination of seniority by roster.   Mere fact that said

rules are not explicit or makes it expressly clear that

seniority is to be determined on the basis of roster is not

conclusive.  The purpose and object of the Rule 7 of Rules,

2007 read with Appendix­B is clear that the roster is to be

followed for determination of the seniority.  The High Court

in the impugned judgment has considered the issue as to

whether roster is applicable in determination of seniority or

not.  Issue No. 7 as was noticed above, which was framed by

the Committee and was also adjudicated by the High Court was

“Whether roster (Appendix­B) can be read into and applied to

the rule of seniority”.   After elaborate discussions, High

Court in Para 180 concluded:­

42

“Hence, this Court is of the opinion that for determination of inter se seniority of officers recruited from three different sources, roster as directed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court shall be applicable.  The same forms part of the Rules as Appendix ‘B’ but mentioning roster for recruitment, however, shall be applicable even for determination of seniority.”

49.  We endorse the above view of the High Court that roster

shall be applicable for determination of seniority.   

50.  At this juncture, one of the submissions, which has been

emphatically pressed by the learned counsel for the promotees

is that for determination of seniority, continuous length of

service is determinative.  The direct recruits and out of turn

promotees, who were not even born in the cadre when promotees

were promoted, they have to take seniority after the

promotees.   In this reference, it is useful to refer to a

judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. N.R.

Parmar and Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340, the issue in the said

case was also an issue of determination of seniority between

direct recruits vis­à­vis promotees and quota and rota

principles.   This Court had occasion to consider the office

memorandum issued by the Government dated 22.12.1959.

Noticing Para 6 of above office memorandum following was

stated in Para 23 of the judgment:­

“23. The General Principles for determining seniority

43

in the Central Services are shown to have been laid down in an annexure to an Office Memorandum dated 22­12­1959 issued by the Government of India, Min­ istry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred to as “the OM dated 22­12­1959”). Para 6 of the annexure, referred to above, laid down the manner of determin­ ing inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Para 6 is being extracted hereunder:

“6. Relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees.—The relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Department Rules.”

It is apparent from the above extract of the OM dated 22­12­1959, that the “quota” between promotees and direct recruits was to be read into the seniority rule. The OM also provided for a definite rotation of seniority points (“rota”) between promotees and di­ rect recruits. The rotation provided for was founded on the concept of rotation of quotas between promo­ tees and direct recruits. It is therefore apparent, that under the OM dated 22­12­1959 inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits was based on the “quota” and “rota” principle. The same has been meaningfully described as “rotation of quotas” in some of these instruments.”

51.  There was further office memorandum on 07.02.1986 to take

care of situation where it was decided that in future, while

the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for

determining the inter­se seniority of direct recruits and

promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for

being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby

44

giving them unintended seniority over promotees who were

already in position, would be dispensed with. This Court

noticed office memorandum dated 07.02.1986 and observed that

“when direct recruits or promotees become available through

later examinations or selections”, it clearly mean that the

situation contemplated is one where, there has been an earlier

examination or selection, and is then followed by a "later"

examination or selection.

52.  In the above context, this court laid down following in

Paragraph 31.2 that “it is not necessary, that the direct

recruits of a particular recruitment year, should join within

the recruitment year itself”. It was held that date of joining

would not be a relevant factor for determining seniority of

direct recruits.   In paragraph 31.2 and 34.1 following has

been laid down:­

“31.2. It is not necessary, that the direct recruits for vacancies of a particular recruitment year, should join within the recruitment year (during which the vacancies had arisen) itself. As such, the date of joining would not be a relevant factor for deter­ mining seniority of direct recruits. It would suffice if action has been initiated for direct recruit va­ cancies, within the recruitment year in which the va­ cancies had become available. This is so, because de­ lay in administrative action, it was felt, could not deprive an individual of his due seniority. As such, initiation of action for recruitment within the re­ cruitment year would be sufficient to assign senior­ ity to the appointees concerned in terms of the “ro­ tation of quotas” principle, so as to arrange them with other appointees (from the alternative source),

45

for vacancies of the same recruitment year.

34.1.  If the process of recruitment has been initi­ ated during the recruitment year (in which the vacan­ cies have arisen) itself, even if the examination for the said recruitment is held in a subsequent year, and the result is declared in a year later (than the one in which the examination was held), and the se­ lected candidates joined in a further later year (than the one in which the result was declared), the selected candidates will be entitled to be assigned seniority, with reference to the recruitment year (in which the requisition of vacancies was made). The logic and reasoning for the aforesaid conclusion (ex­ pressed in the ON dated 2­2­2000) is, if the process of direct recruitment is initiated in the recruitment year itself, the selected candidate(s) cannot be blamed for the administrative delay, in completing the process of selection.”

53.  In the present case, process for all the three streams

was completed in the year 2008 and all the officers of three

streams had joined in the same year.   The submission that

quota rota rule was broken or seniority will be affected

because of joining of one category of officers earlier cannot

be accepted.  It is also relevant to notice that purpose of

statutory rules and laying down a procedure for recruitment

was to achieve the certainty.  Officers belonging to different

streams have to be confidant that they shall be recruited

under their quota and get seniority as per their quota and

roster.  In event, the seniority is to be fixed with date of

joining of particular stream, it will lead to uncertainty and

46

making seniority depending on administrative authorities,

which is neither in the interest of service nor serve the

cause of justice. We, thus, conclude that roster is fully

applicable for determination of seniority.   Officers of

different streams selected in a particular year even though

they were allowed to join the post on different dates shall

not affect their inter se seniority, which is to be decided on

the basis of roster.           

     The position of Fast Track Court Judges including in the Select list of all three streams in 2008 recruitment.

54. The promotion order issued by the Government of Punjab on

the recommendations of the High Court promoting fifteen

officers under 50% quota under Rule 7(3)(a) also contained six

officers who were working on ad­hoc basis in Fast Track

Courts. Similarly, appointment order issuing promoting eight

judicial officers under quota for out of turn promotion

included one officer Shri Arunvir Vashista, who was working on

ad­hoc basis in Fast Track Court. The tentative seniority list

indicates that two officers namely Parminder Pal Singh (at

Sl.No.15) and Sukhdev Singh (Sl.No.16) were shown as direct

recruits having been absorbed from Fast Track Courts against

the quota of direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c). Parminder Pal

Singh and Sukhdev Singh were recruited as Fast Track Court

47

Judges directly from the Bar. In the tentative seniority list,

the name of promotee officers who had earlier been working as

Fast Track Court Judge have been shown as per their seniority

in lower cadre.  

55. The officers, under out of turn promotions quota, whose

names were mentioned at Serial No.17 to 24 under Rule 7(3)(b)

were arranged according to their merit as disclosed in limited

Departmental Competitive Examination. Two Fast Track Court

Judges who were included against available posts in direct

recruit quota were shown above the direct recruits. In so far

inter­se­seniority amongst the promotee officers promoted

under Rule 7(3)(a) is concerned, there is no issue. All have

been arranged according to their seniority as required by Rule

12(1). After the circulation of tentative seniority list dated

25.09.2014, objections were filed by direct recruits

questioning the placement of Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev

Singh at Serial No.15 and 16 under the direct quota above

other direct recruits.  

56.  With regard to Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, it

was stated by direct recruits that their appointment under

Rule 7(3)(c) was not permissible since they were not advocates

at the time of selection of Direct recruits and they were not

48

selected on the basis of the written test and viva­voice under

which all direct recruit candidates were subjected. It was

submitted that absorption of these officers is an  ex gratia

absorption in service and as such they cannot be treated

senior to the direct recruits.  

57.  One of the out of turn promotee namely, Arunvir Vashista

had staked his claim before the committee.   It was submitted

that he being seniormost officer among the out of turn

selected candidates and although he was placed at serial No.6

as per his merit but he being the only officer who already

stood promoted as presiding officer of the Fast Track Court on

ad­hoc basis, he was  entitled to be absorbed and remained

promoted to the Superior Judicial Service. Thus, his

appointment on regular basis will relate back to his

appointment in Fast Track Court in the service.

 58.   With regard to absorption of Fast Track Court Judges,

this Court had elaborately considered the issue in Brij Mohan

Lal versus Union of India and others, (2012) 6 SCC 502. Fast

Track Courts Judges who were working as direct recruits from

the Bar as well as those who were ad­hoc promotees as Fast

Track Court Judges had staked their claim for being absorbed

on regular cadre. After considering the respective submission,

49

this court in paragraph 207 has issued various directions.

Paragraph 207.9 relates to Fast Track Court Judges who were

appointed by way of direct appointment, which is to the

following effect: ­

“207.9.  All the persons who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the Bar as Judges to preside over FTCs under the FTC Scheme shall be entitled to be appointed to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective States only in the following manner:

(a) The direct recruits to FTCs who opt for regularization shall take a written examination to be conducted by the High Courts of the respective States for determining their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.

(b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and four senior most Judges of that High Court.

(c) There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview. The qualifying marks shall be 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The examination and interview shall be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the States for direct appointment to Higher Judicial Services.

(d) Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark per year of service in the FTCs, which shall form part of the

50

interview marks.

(e) Needless to point out that this examination and interview should be conducted by the respective High Courts keeping in mind that all these applicants have put in a number of years as FTC Judges and have served the country by administering justice in accordance with law. The written examination and interview module, should, thus, be framed keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.

(f) The candidates who qualify the written examination and obtain consolidated percentage as aforeindicated shall be appointed to the post of Additional District Judge in the regular cadre of the State.

(g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available in the regular cadre, we hereby direct the State Governments to create such additional vacancies as may be necessary keeping in view the number of candidates selected.

(h) All sitting and/or former FTC Judges who were directly appointed from the Bar and are desirous of taking the examination and interview for regular appointment shall be given age relaxation. No application shall be rejected on the ground of age of the applicant being in excess of the prescribed age.”

59.  With regard to candidates from any state who were

promoted as Fast Track Court Judges from the post of Civil

Judge,  Senior  division, following  direction were  issued in

51

paragraph 207.13:

“207.13. The candidates from any State, who were promoted as FTC Judges from the post of Civil Judge, Senior Division having requisite experience in service, shall be entitled to be absorbed and remain promoted to the Higher Judicial Services of that State subject to:

(a) Such promotion, when effected against the 25% quota for out­of­turn promotion on merit, in accordance with the judgment of

this Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (3)12, by taking and being selected through the requisite examination, as contemplated for out­of­turn promotion.

(b) If the appointee has the requisite seniority and is entitled to promotion against 25% quota for promotion by seniority­cum­merit, he shall be promoted on his own turn to the Higher Judicial Services without any written examination.

(c) While considering candidates either under Category (a) or (b) above, due weightage shall be given to the fact that they have already put in a number of years in service in the Higher Judicial Services and, of course, with reference to their performance.

(d) All other appointees in this category, in the event of discontinuation of the FTC Scheme, would revert to their respective posts in the appropriate cadre.”

60.   With regard to the candidates Parminder Pal Singh and

Sukhdev Singh, Recruitment and Appointment committee has

52

noticed that they were subjected to a written test and

viva­voice for finding their suitability to be absorbed in the

regular Cadre. In paragraph 9 of the report dated 11.08.2015

of Recruitment/Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Service)

it has noticed that presiding officers of Fast Track Courts

for being considered in the regular Cadre, they were subjected

to undergo written test examination and viva­voice. Paragraph

9 of the report of the committee is as follows: ­

“9. Hon’ble Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice and four senior­most judges in its meeting held on 18.03.2008 considered the absorption of Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts in the regular cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judges from the quota of Bar in the State in the States of Punjab and Haryana, respectively. The Officers were considered on the basis of their performance in (i) written examination; (ii) viva voice and (iii) ACRs. As per the merit list, the names of Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh were recommended for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the State of Punjab.  These recommendations were approved by the Full Court in its meeting held on 10.04.2008. The Government of Punjab appointed both the Officers to Punjab Superior Judicial Service Order dated 24.06.2008.””

61.  The above report was subsequently approved by full court

on the basis of which tentative seniority list was issued. The

two officers Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh were

53

appointed to Punjab Superior Judicial Service by Order dated

24.06.2008. In the tentative seniority list, they were placed

at serial no.15 and 16 i.e. above the direct recruits. It is

relevant to note that the tentative seniority list was

prepared by the committee on the basis of continuous length of

service. It was probably due to that reason that serial no. 15

and 16, direct recruits were shown above the out of turn

promotees and direct recruits. The above two officers who were

taken on the regular Cadre of Additional District Judge, after

written test and viva­voice test which is almost the same

procedure which has been subsequently laid down by this Court

in Brij Mohan Lal case dated 19.04.2012(Supra). The above two

officers  having been  included  in  direct recruitment quota,

they have to be clubbed along with the direct recruits. We

have already held that for determining the seniority, the

roster is applicable. The objection of direct recruits that

they cannot be included in the quota meant for direct recruits

since they have not undergone the same written test and

viva­voice, which has been undertaken by the direct recruits,

thus, cannot be accepted.

62. As per the judgment of this court in Brij Mohan Lal case

(Supra), officers from Bar, advocates working as Fast Track

Court Judges can be taken under the regular Cadre after they

54

have cleared the written test and viva­voice. The direction of

this Court in paragraph 207.9(g) which says that “if for any

reason, vacancies are not available in the regular Cadre, we

hereby direct the State Government to create such additional

vacancies as may be necessary, keeping in view the number of

selected candidates”, indicates that Fast Track Court Judges

had to be taken into regular cadre if vacancies are there. In

the present case, they has been adjustments against two

vacancies which were available, hence, they having been taken

in the regular Cadre as a direct recruit, has to be accepted.

Further, present is not a case where their selection in the

regular cadre as Additional District Judge is under challenge.

Only issue which is raised is regarding their placement in the

seniority list.  

63.  One more aspect in this context needs to be noted. Rule

12(3) provides that “the inter­se­seniority of the direct

appointee shall be on the basis of merit as is determined by

the High  Court.”  The  inter­se­seniority as  contemplated by

Rule 12(3) obviously means inter­se­seniority reflected in the

same examination. The two officers from the Fast Track Court

having not taken the same examination, Rule 12(3) is not

technically applicable while judging inter­se­seniority of

these two officers and other direct recruits. However, in view

55

of the  directions  of this  Court  in  Brij Mohan Lal’s case

(Supra) taking these two Fast Track Court officers from Bar in

the regular cadre cannot be held faulty. They having been

working as Additional District Judges in the Fast Track Court

and they having been appointed in the regular cadre although

in the same recruitment year, their placement above other

direct recruits is justified. However, these two officers will

be grouped along with direct recruits and shall occupy

position number 1 and 2 in the direct recruits and others will

follow thereafter.

64.  Now we come to the claim of Shri Arunvir Vashista Fast

Track Court Judge who was selected by out of turn promotion.

Shri Arunvir Vashista was appointed as Fast Track Court Judge

consequent to promotion of fifteen officers under Rule 7(3)

(a). The appointment and selection committee along with

proposing fifteen promotions under Rule 7(3)(a) has also

proposed seven officers to man the Fast Track Courts in which

Shri Arunvir Vashista was included. Shri Arunvir Vashista thus

occupied the Fast Track Court judge post in the year 2008

itself and participated in the limited departmental

competitive examination and secured sixth position on merit.

Among the out of turn promotees Shri Arunvir Vashista has been

placed at sixth place.

56

65. Shri Arunvir Vashista in his brief written synopsis does

not dispute that seniority is to be fixed by the roster points

and irrespective of the fact, as to when a person is

recruited. He rightly submits that rules are subsidiary and

subservient to the law. He has also placed reliance on order

of this Court dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.1022/1989,

All India Judges Association and others versus Union of India

and others. The Order of this court dated 28.04.2016, is to

the following effect: ­

“The second prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to follow “post based roster” in appointments to the cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.03.2003. The said prayer is again based on the statement of law as propounded in paragraph 49 of the above referred to decision rendered in All Indian Judges’ Association and Others (Supra).  While stating as to in what manner the 40­point roster is to be determined, this Court directed that appropriate Rules and methods should be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States wherever necessary by 31.03.2003. When this application was moved, initially on behalf of the High Court, learned Standing Counsel took notice and submitted that in the High Court a Committee has been constituted which is deliberating on this issue and, therefore, he will be able to report to this Court in a week’s time. It is now pointed out by Mr.Patil, learned senior counsel for the applicant(s) that the 34 point roster has been drawn by the High Court based on the cadre strength providing for different points applicable to the promotes by way of limited competitive examination as well as for direct recruits in the entry

57

level District/Additional District and Sessions Judge.  It is also brought to our notice that appropriate Rules have also been drawn by the High Court which has been notified by the State Government on 16th

March, 2004.””

66.  The Order of this Court dated 28.04.2006 re­enforces the

directions given by this Court in All India Judges’ Case dated

21.03.2002.

67.  It was contended on behalf of Shri Arunvir Vashista

before the Recruitment and Promotion Committee that although

in the merit list of out of turn promotion, he is at serial

No. 6 but he being the only officer who was working officer as

presiding officer of the Fast Track Court on ad­hoc basis, he

is “entitled to be absorbed and remained promoted to the

post.” There is no denial that Shri Arunvir Vashista has been

regularly promoted under Rule 7(3)(b) and continues his

substantive promotion. When the roster is applicable, the

seniority has to be fixed by the roster point. As per Rule

12(2) the inter­se­seniority of the out of turn promoted

officers shall be “in the order of merit as is determined by

the High Court”. Thus, seniority position of Shri Arunvir

Vashista among the out of turn promotees has to be in

accordance with the merit. His position among the out of turn

promotees has thus rightly been shown as serial no.6 with

58

which no infirmity can be found. We thus conclude that all

Fast Track Court judges who were taken into the regular cadre

in different streams have been rightly placed in the seniority

list amongst their stream to which no exception can be taken.

OUR CONCLUSIONS:

68. The tentative seniority list was prepared on the basis of

continuous length of service, hence, all promotee officers who

had joined on 27th/28th  February, 2008 have been shown at

serial no.1 to 14. Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Fast

Track Court Judges from Bar who were appointed in regular

cadre w.e.f. 01.08.2008 have been shown at serial no.15 and

16. From Serial No.17 to 24 were out of turn promotees in

block and thereafter Serial No.25 to 35, direct recruits were

placed in block. The final tentative seniority list has been

approved by the committee after considering the objections. It

is reflected in its report dated 11.08.2015. Full Court

approved the report dated 11.08.2015, hence, final seniority

list was issued on 24.12.2015. Final seniority list was same

as tentative seniority list. The Division Bench of the High

Court deciding the writ petitions challenging the seniority

list has held:

i) roster shall be applicable in determination of

seniority.

59

ii) fifteen promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in

excess of their quota.

iii) Promotion of fifteen promotees under Rule 7(3) has

to be treated as ad­hoc promotion and they shall be

placed at the bottom of seniority.

69. The Writ Petitions were allowed by Division Bench. In

accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench only change

in the seniority list was to displace the promotees from

serial no.1 to 14 and to place it in the seniority list below

direct recruits. The division bench judgment of the High Court

is under challenge before us.  

70.   In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the

following conclusions: ­

1) Promotion of fifteen officers under Rule 7(3)(a)

cannot be held beyond their quota.

2) The promotion of fifteen officers cannot be said to be

ad­hoc nor they can be directed to be put  at the bottom

of the seniority list.

3) The High Court even though accepted the principle that

roster is applicable in the seniority but in the

operative portion of the judgment in paragraph 208 did

60

not issue any direction to re­cast the seniority as per

the roster given in the Appendix­B which is an apparent

error committed by the High Court.

4) Rule 2007 having been brought in place to give effect

to the judgment of this Court in  All India Judges

association case, (2002) 4 SCC 247, while  interpreting

the Rules 2007 the direction issued by this court have to

be kept in mind and rules cannot be interpreted in a

manner so as to violate the directions issued by this

Court in the above judgment.

5) Rule 7(4) read with Appendix­B has to be read in the

light of direction of this Court in All India’s case and

harmonious construction of the rule clearly indicates

that roster which has been expressly made applicable for

filling the post of all the three streams shall be

applicable while determining the seniority.

Reliefs: ­

71.  In view of foregoing discussion, the seniority list dated

24.12.2015 is to be set aside. After setting aside the

seniority list, two courses are open. Firstly, to remit this

matter to the High Court again to re­cast the seniority list

as per our direction and secondly, to finalize seniority list

61

in this judgment itself. We choose to adopt the second course

for two reasons:

a) Already period of three years has elapsed when the

tentative seniority list was published. Finalisation of

seniority as early as possible is essential and necessary

for administration of justice.

b) There is no dispute regarding inter­se­seniority of

the promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) and issue pertaining to

inter­se­seniority of out of turn promotees and direct

recruits have already been finalized by us. Only exercise

which is to be undertaken is to place officers of three

streams in accordance with the roster as indicated in

Appendix­B. After placing the officers of three streams,

the seniority position as per roster comes as follows:

S.NO. NAME RULE

1. Shri Keshav Chander Gupta, Addl.D&SJ (Since retired prematurely)

7(3)(a)

2. Shri Narinder Kumar Gaur, Addl.D&SJ (since retired prematurely w.e.f 07.06.2011)

7(3)(a)

3. Shri Parminder Pal Singh, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

4. Shri Virinder Aggarwal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

5. Shri Kishore Kumar, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

62

6. Shri Paramjit Singh, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

7. Shri Sukhdev Singh, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

8. Ms. Mandeep Pannu, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

9. Shri Pritam Singh Dhanona, Addl.D&SJ, (Ex.S.M.)

7(3)(a)

10. Shri Harpal Singh, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

11. Shri Munish Singhal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

12. Shri Ashok Paul Batra, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

13. Shri Amrinder Singh Grewal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

14. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Randhawa, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

15. Ms. Rupinderjit Chahal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

16. Shri Rajinder Agarwal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

17. Ms. Ramesh Kumari, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

18. Shri Jagjit Singh Chohan, Addl.D&SJ (since expired)

7(3)(a)

19. Shri Kamaljit lamba, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

20. Shri Tarsem Mangla, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

21. Shri Nirmal Singh, Addl.D&SJ (Since retired prematurely)

7(3)(a)

22. Ms. Sunita Kumari, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

23. Shri Nirbhow Singh Gill, 7(3)(c)

63

Addl.D&SJ

24. Shri Arunvir Vashista, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

25. Ms. Asha Condal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

26. Shri Kuldeep Kumar Kareer, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(a)

27. Shri Jatinder Pal Singh Khumi, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

28. Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

29. Dr. Hemant Gopal, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

30. Shri Surinder Singh Sahni, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(b)

31. Shri Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

32. Shri Sumeet Malhotra, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

33. Shri Arun Gupta, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

34. Ms. Jatinder Kaur­II, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

35. Shri Mohd. Gulzar, Addl.D&SJ

7(3)(c)

72.  It is further relevant to note that in view of judgment

of this Court in (2010) 15 SCC 117,  All India Judges

Association, quota of 25 percent for out of promotees has been

reduced as 10 percent w.e.f. 01.01.2011. The present seniority

dispute being related to recruitment held in 2008, the

reduction in quota may not be relevant in the present case.

73.  In view of foregoing conclusions all appeals are allowed

64

in following manner: ­

1) The Division Bench judgment of the High Court so far

as it holds that roster is applicable in the

determination of seniority of members of superior

judicial service is upheld.

2) The judgment of the Division bench of the High Court

holding that fifteen promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) were

beyond the quota and shall take position at the bottom of

the seniority list is set aside.

3) The seniority list dated 24.12.2014 is set aside. The

list of 35 officers arranged as per Roster as indicated

above shall be treated as final Seniority list of the

officers recruited in the year 2008.

74. The parties shall bear their own cost.

..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI )

..........................J.     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 03, 2018.