Honble High Court Of Judicature At ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2. Before giving brief facts we may note that the Rules and the issue of seniority of the HJS officers were subject matter of consideration, inter alia, in P.K. Dixit versus State of U.P.2, O.P. Garg versus State of U.P.3, Sri Kant Tripathi versus State of U.P.4, Ashok Pal Singh versus U.P. Judicial Services Association5, V.K. Srivastava versus Govt. of U.P. 6 and Het Singh Yadav versus State of U.P.7

(b) by promotion of confirmed members of the Uttar Pradesh Nyayik Sewa (hereinafter (b) By promotion strictly on the basis of merit referred to as the Nyayik Sewa), who have through limited competitive examination of put in not less than seven years service to Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less be computed on the first day of January than five years qualifying service; next following the year in which the notice inviting application is published: (c) By direct recruitment from amongst the Advocates of not less than seven years Provided that so far long as suitable standing on the first day of January next officers are available from out of the dying following the year in which the notice inviting cadre of the Judicial Magistrates confirmed applications is published. officers who have put in not less than 9 seven years service to be computed as aforesaid shall be eligible for appointment as Additional Sessions Judges in the Service.

24. In Writ Petition (SB) No.16569 of 2016 filed by the promotees, challenge was to the validity of the Amendment Rules, 2006 in so far as the Rules were retrospective. Challenge was also to the reports of the Committees and decision of the Full Court in so far as objections to seniority list were rejected. The 24 petitioners in the said writ petition were promoted against vacancies of the years 2002 onwards but the said vacancies were actually determined later. According to the said writ petitioners, they were entitled to seniority from the date of their eligibility, without their passing of the suitability test which was retrospectively prescribed for the first time on 9 th January, 2007.

to four times the number of vacancies to be filled from this source. The Selection (4) The Selection Committee referred to in Committee shall prepare a list in order of Rule 16 shall scrutinize the seniority of the eligible officers. applications received and shall hold a limited competitive examination, as (3) Criterion for selection shall be prescribed in Appendix 'H'. seniority-cum-merit. In assessing the merits of a candidate the Selection Committee shall (5) The Selection Committee shall prepare a have due regard to his service record ability, select list on the basis of the character and seniority. The preliminary merit of the successful candidates. selection shall be made by the Selection Committee referred to in Rule 6 and the list of (6) The committee shall make a preliminary the selected candidates shall be forwarded to selection and submit the record of all the Chief Justice along with the names of the candidates to the Chief Justice and officers who, if any, in the opinion of the recommend the names of the candidates in Committee are unfit for appointment to the order of merit who, in its opinion are suitable Service. for appointment to the service.

the first vacancy shall be filled (3) In the eventuality of delay from the list of officers of the in making appointment under Nyayik Sewa, the second sub-rule (1) and further if vacancy shall be filled from exigency of service so the list of Judicial Magistrates requires the Governor may, in (and so on). constitution with the Court, make short term appointment as a stop-gap arrangement from amongst the promotees, in the vacancy in these services fill the appointment are made under sub-rules (1) and (2):

21. The report of the Committee dated 23 rd September, 2015 was in continuation of its earlier reports finalizing seniority lists dated 6th May, 1995 and 13th July, 2011, with reference to officers recruited prior to 2007. The Committee determined vacancies vide its report dated 7 th February, 2012 on the basis of which tentative seniority lists dated 25 th July, 2013 and 18th December, 2014 were published. Objections to the said tentative seniority lists were considered in the said report.

26. It was held that no determination of vacancies had taken place on account of pendency of litigation which was finalized on 25th August, 2004. No direct recruitment was made after 1998-2000 upto 2005. Only after 25th August, 2004 determination of vacancies took place. Promotions and direct recruitments were made in respect of the said selection in the year 2005. Promotions and direct recruitments which are subject matter of the present case were made in 2008/2009. Thus, Writ Petition (SB) No.16569 of 2016 was dismissed and objection of the promotees to their seniority was rejected.

31. Accordingly, we allow the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26993 of 2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition (SB) No.1880 of 2017 on the file of the High Court filed by the direct recruits. We uphold the judgment of the High Court with regard to dismissal of Writ Petition (SB) No.16569 of 2016 filed by the promotees and dismiss the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (civil) D.No.39750 of 2017.

In view of the above, all other matters will stand disposed of accordingly.

March 28, 2018.