Srikant Roy & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors

3. The leading Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9883/2009, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(S) No.4159/2008 dated 29th August 2008. By the said Writ Petition, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) had challenged the selection process for filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judges through Limited Competitive Examination scheduled on 31st August 2008; and also 18 posts of Additional District Judges from the promotee officers on the basis of merit- cum-seniority scheduled on 23rd August 2008. The writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) were appointed purely against temporary and ex- cadre posts on ad-hoc basis, as Presiding Officer, Fast Track Courts in the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year 2002. According to the said writ petitioners, the impugned selection process was improper and not in conformity with the mandate of the amended Rules requiring ratio of 50:25:25 - by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges on the basis of merit- cum-seniority and passing of a suitability test; by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the basis of merit through a Limited Competitive Examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years service; and by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of written test and viva-voce conducted by the High Court, respectively. The said writ petitioners asserted that if the impugned selection process was allowed to be taken forward, it would be in breach of the relevant Recruitment Rules and also infringe the mandate of adhering to the roster as per Rule 8 of the amended Rules. The main contention of the said writ petitioners was that the High Court was erroneously linking the ratio of posts to fill up the vacancies by giving retrospective effect to the amended Rules, which has come into force w.e.f. 20th August 2004. The challenge before the High Court in the writ petition, as has been noted in the opening para 1 of the impugned judgment was limited to the quota assigned for the Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the (Subordinate Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division) scheduled to be held on 31st August 2008. The High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment has noted that the challenge is only to the extent of 42 posts of Additional District Judges which had to be filled up by following the roster system in the ratio of 25:25. Those posts were required to be bifurcated equally between the promotees from the rank of Subordinate Judges by conducting Limited Competitive Examination and direct recruits from the Bar in the ratio of 25:25. In paragraph 10 onwards of the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the plea of the said writ petitioners and issued directions to the High Court to fill up the vacancies, as directed. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads thus:

4. The appellants, who were working as Subordinate Judges at the relevant time and were otherwise eligible to appear in the Limited Competitive Examination for filling up the notified vacancies by way of promotion, have approached this Court to question the aforesaid decision.

5. The cognate Writ Petitions involve overlapping issues. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, however, participated in the selection process of 2010 commenced on the basis of an advertisement No. 1/2010 for the post of Additional District Judge from the Bar. These petitioners did not succeed in getting appointed, as the first 8 candidates in the merit list exhausted the 8 vacancies notified for the relevant period. The said writ petitioners were, however, placed at serial No.9 onwards in the merit list. According to these petitioners, some more posts were available for direct recruits from the Bar. That contention, essentially, is dependent on the outcome of Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9883/2009 wherein the selection process of 2008 is the subject matter. According to these writ petitioners, the High Court had failed to notify the correct number of vacancies for 2010. The correct number of vacancies in 2010 to be filled up by direct recruitment ought to be 13. Indeed, the writ petitioners have made their own assumption to arrive at this number of vacancies, as is spelt out from the averments in the Writ Petition.

Consequently, the process of examination to be held on 31.8.2008 is also set aside. The writ petition, accordingly, is allowed, but without any order as to costs.”

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

25% shall be filled in by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the basis of merit through a limited competitive examination of Sub Judges having not less than 5 years service and also having due regard to his service record in the past.

25% shall be filled in by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of test and viva-voce conducted by the High Court.

For promote officers from the service-

For promote officers form the limited competitive examination of Sub Judge, 3,7,11,15,19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,63,67,71,75,79,83,87,91,95,99.

For direct recruits-

4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,48,52,56,60,64,68,72,76,80,88,92,96,100.

By order of Governor (Shri Nitya Shankar Mukhopaddya) Deputy Secretary of State No. 6/Estab Jud 610/2001 Perso. 4544/after Ranchi Date 20.08.2004 Copy to- Superintendent, Government press, Doranda Ranchi, with request that be published in next edition of Jharkhand official Gazette.

Deputy Secretary of Govt,”

18. Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota of direct recruit as on 30th August 2008, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 in the leading appeal), who could participate in the selection process for direct recruit alone and not by way of promotion through Limited Competitive Examination, had no locus to challenge the selection process of 2008.

21. The decision in the case of Rakhi Ray & Ors. Vs. High Court of Delhi and Ors.[2] will be of no avail to the writ petitioners and would instead support the view we have already taken. The writ petitioners cannot be heard to claim relief on the basis of the subsequent selection process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 22nd February 2013. The High Court was not expected to fill the vacancies over and above the vacancies advertised for selection process of 2010. Moreover, since the writ petitioners have participated in the earlier selection process of 2010 and not in the subsequent selection process conducted on the basis of Notification dated 22nd February 2013 for the year 2012, they cannot be given any relief.

22. Considering the above, the Civil Appeal must succeed and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP(S) No.4159/2008 dated 29th August 2008 is set aside and consequently the WP(S) No.4159/2008 stands dismissed. Even the three connected Writ Petitions bearing Nos.300/2013,27/2014 and 325/2014 deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed. Accompanying, I.As are disposed of in the same terms.

23. We order accordingly. No order as to costs.

………………………..CJI.