Case Brief
Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors. – Writ Petition (civil) 516 of 1992
Deciding Authority
Supreme Court
Name of the Judges
G.B.Pattanaik, U.C.Banerjee, N.S.Hegde
Date of Judgment
10th January 2001
Facts of the Case
One direct recruit judicial officer, said to be aggrieved by the issuance of a Notification dated 13th December, 1990 in the matter of revision and refixation of the dates of confirmation of Districts/Additional District and Session Judges in Haryana Superior Judicial Service had brought this matter before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The appellant joined the service on 2nd May, 1983 as a direct recruit Additional District & Sessions Judge in Judicial Service on probation for a period of 2 years. The contextual facts depict that shortly after joining the post and during the probationary period, the petitioner’s services were terminated and in accordance with the existing Rules, the recommendation for such termination was duly sent to the State Government but the State Government in its turn however requested for a further probationary period of one year. Subsequently however, upon the expiry of the extended period the petitioners services were terminated and it is against the termination order, that the petitioner moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. By an order dated 26.5.1988 this Court however did set aside the order of termination and a direction was issued for reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service together with all arrears of salary, allowances and other benefits and in terms therewith petitioners service was confirmed with effect from 2nd May, 1986. Subsequent to the placement of the petitioner as above (i.e. to say from 2.5.1986), the petitioner however, moved an interlocutory application in the Civil Appeal No.811 of 1988 and this Court on 11th September, 1990 passed an order to the effect that the petitioners entitlement for confirmation from 2nd May, 1985 cannot be doubted and the High Court was not right in confirming the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1986 and it is on this perspective a further direction was issued by this Court for confirmation of the petitioner with effect from 2nd May, 1985 within two months and the same was duly complied with recording the confirmation as directed. The petitioner however moved once again this Court, under Article 32 which is presently under consideration inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order or notification dated 13.12.1990 regarding the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list.
Judgment
The petitioner contended that he is entitled to be confirmed with effect from 2.5.83 and have his seniority fixed next to Shri KK Agarwal and the seniority has to be assigned on the date of promotion/date of joining service since the appointment of the petitioner was on a vacant post on 2.5.83 and in the cadre having a total strength of 27 candidates and having regard to the ratio between the direct recruits and promotees, the former were entitled to 9 posts whereas promotes were entitled to 18 posts and since respondent Nos. 3 to 8 do not come within those 18 promotee officers and Shri KK Agarwal being placed at Item No.18 in the list of promotee officers there exists no manner of doubt as to the placement of the petitioner before respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as promote officers.
Mr. Mahabir Singh on the other hand contended that at the time of appointment of the petitioner along with two others in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service there were 27 permanent posts in the cadre. According to Rule 8(2) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) in force on the relevant date, the number of posts to be manned by the direct recruits were nine. It may also be stated that prior to the amendment made in Rules 2(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) with effect from 19.3.1984 only permanent posts were treated as cadre posts and seniority of members of Haryana Superior Judicial Service was to be determined with reference to the respective dates of confirmation. On the wake of the observations and the directions of the Constitution Bench in Yadavs case, Sh. IC Jain, the petitioner having joined Haryana Superior Judicial Service on 2.5.1983, could not be confirmed earlier to 2.5.1985 i.e. on completion of two years period of probation.
Seniority itself based upon length of service is an acquired right of an employee which entitles him to be considered for further promotion. It is generally regulated by service rules. Such rules normally provide for determined seniority with reference to the date of appointment to the class, category and grade to which the appointment is made. It is determined only on the basis of the length of service.
Decision
The Hon’ble Court observed that the writ petition has no merit and dismissed the same with costs assessed at Rs. 2000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Committee of the Court.
Shubham Shandilya, 4th Year, B.B.A. LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS