SRIKANT ROY & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 58, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 58 
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(CivilAppealNo. 10874of2016) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service - Selection 
process - Selection for the posts of Additional District Judges -
Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment 
and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001 - rr. 5 and 8 - Bifurcation 
of posts as per roster system pursuant to amended rules - In terms 
whereof, 50% of the posts to be filled up by promotees on the basis 
of merit-cum-seniority - Remaining 50% posts to be bifurcated 
equally, i.e. 25% by way of selection through Limited Competitive 
Examination and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar - Selection 
process initiated in August 2008 for filling up posts of ADJs by 
promotion through Limited Competitive Examination - Challenge 
to - High Court held that since 50% of the posts were already filled 
up by promotees on merit-cum-seniority basis, the left over 50% 
vacancies should be filled by promotion through Limited Competitive 
Examination and by the direct recruits in equal proportion - 011 
appeal, held: Amended Rules providing for the ratio to be 
maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became 
effective on 20'" August 2004 and had prospective application - In 
terms of the consistent stand of the State Government and the 
affidavit filed by High Court
(Administrative Side), it is clear that 
the notification for filling up posts of ADJ by promotion issued in 
2008 was on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct 
recruit quota was available - High Court committed manifest error 
in not considering these relevant facts as to vacant posts in relation 
to direct recruit quota - Distinction between "post" and "vacancy" 
overlooked by High Court - Once it is found that no vacancy against 
the quota of direct recruilment was available at the relevant time, 
private respondents who were eligible to participate in the selection 
process through direct recruitment alone and not by promotion, had 
58
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
59 
no locus to challenge the 2008. selection process - Resultantly, 2008 
A 
selection process held to be proper and final - Judiciary. 
Allowing the leading Civil Appeal and dismissing the three 
connected writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 When the amended Rules providing for tile 
ratio to be.maintained between the promotees and direct recruits 
became effective on 20 1h August 2004 and had prospective 
application, the factual position as obtained on 20'h August 2004 
would become relevant. [Para 12] [70-G-H] 
1.2 In view of Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed 
prior to the amendment of 20.08.2004 appointments made prior 
to 2004 were governed by the Rules as applicable at the relevant 
time. As per that dispensation, the direct recruit~ quota was 33% 
of the total posts. That was obviously in excess of 25% now 
specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 20.08.2004). 
Notably, the State of Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in 
C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court stating that no vacancy 
against 25% quota for direct recruitment existed in the State of 
Jharkband at that time. This affidavit was filed on 261h August 
2008 after the amended Rules were notified and came into force 
w.e.f. 201h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling up of 34 posts 
of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive 
Examination from amongst. the members of Jharkhand 
Subordinate Judges was issued in 2008 on the basis
that no 
vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available. 
That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit filed by the 
High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment committed 
manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about the 
vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004, before recording 
a finding against the High Court and the State Government and 
to reject their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct 
recruit was available as on 30.04.2008. [Paras 13, 14) [71-A; 72-
C-F] 
1.3 Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct 
recruitment was available as on 30'h April, 2008, no fault can be 
found with the selection process commenced by the High Court 
for appointment in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Service by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
60 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2016l 11 S.C.R. 
Competitive Examination. The High Court in the impugned 
judgment glossed over the effect of filling up the vacancies in the 
ratio of 25:25, which inevitably would exceed the quota of posts 
for direct recruits as on 30.04.2008. That would disturb the roster 
point and was impermissible in terms of Rule 8 as amended. [Para 
16] 
[76-A-B] 
1.4 Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota 
of direct recruit as on 30'h 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. [Para 18] [78-
A-B] 
2. The High Court 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 in 
service judicial officers by promotion through Limited 
Competitive Examination. [Para 19] [78-B-C] 
All India Judges 'Association & Ors. l~ Union of India 
& Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 (2) SCR 712; Rakhi 
Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors. (2010) 2 
SCC 637 : 2010 (2) SCR 239 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference
2002 (2) SCR 712 
referred to 
Para 15 
2010 (2) SCR 239 
referred to 
Para 21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10874 
of2016. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2008 of the High Com1 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPS No. 4159 of 2008 
WITH 
W. P. (C) No. 300 of2013 
W. P. (C) Nos. 27 and 325 of 2014. 
1-1 
Nidhesh Gupta, Amrendra Sharan, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
Singh, Sr. Advs. Raunak Singh, Amit Kumar, Shaurya, Puneet Varshney, 
Rajeev Sharma, Sum it Kumar, Dr. Kai lash Chand, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, · 
Krishnanand Pandeya, Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Devashish 
Bharuka, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh, Ms. Madhur 
Dadlani, Jayesh Gaurav, Anil K. Jha, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. 
Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Shiv Ram Sharma, Ms. Asha Gopalan 
Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This common judgment will dispose all the four petitions. 
3. The leading Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petiti{)n 
(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 291h 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 31" August 2008; and also 18 
posts of Additional District Judges from the promotee officers on the 
basis ofmerit-cum-seniority scheduled on 23'd 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 ofmeritthrough 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. 20'h August 2004. The challenge before the High Court in the writ 
61 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
62 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r20l6] l l S.C.R. 
petition, as has been noted in the opening para l 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 31" 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 of25:25. 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 I 0 
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: 
"I 0. Having heard the counsel for the parties at some length 
in the light of the explanation in regard to the bifurcation of 
the posts as per roster syste111 to be followed in pursuance to 
the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, which was 
a111ended in view of the directions of the Supre111e Court, we 
are of the view that 50% of the posts having already been 
filled up by the pro111otes on the basis of the merit-cu111-
seniority due to which 41 posts were
filled up, the left over 
42 posts have to be bifurcated into 25% and 25% 111eaning 
thereby 21 posts will have to be assigned to be filled up by 
promotion fro111 the Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior 
Division) on the basis of Limited Co111petitive Examination 
and left over 21 posts which constitute 25% of the available 
posts will have to be filled up by the direct recruits as that is 
the clear mandate of the Supreme Court in the case referred 
to herei11before in pursuance to which the Jharkhand 
Superior Judicial Service Rules, was also amended in 2001 
and became effective in 2004. In fact, the petitioners have 
informed this Court that the respondents have not on(v invited 
/he applications for all the 42 posts to be filled up by the 
Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive 
Examination, but even the posts that might be available i11 
the year 2009 have also been included in the advertisement, 
which is clearly not in consonance with the direction of the 
Supreme Court and is also contrary to the Jharkhand
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
Superior JudiCial Service Rules, 2001. 
11. Hence, this court is left which no option, than to set 
aside the examination process, which is scheduled to be held 
on 31. 08. 2008 and further direct the respondents to bifurcate 
the left over posts into the ratio of half and half, i.e. 25% 
and 25% equally and thereafter isst(ed a fresh advertisement 
for filling up 21 posts by the Subordinate Judges on the 
basis of Limited Competitive Examination and the rest 21 
posts will have to be filled up by direct recruits for which 
exercise will have to be undertaken in future by the 
respondents. 
12. As no other point has been pressed in this writ petition 
and the only dispute that has been raised is in record to 
bifurcation of posts contrary to the roster principle, referred 
herein before, and the same having been found to be correct, 
the notification issued on the internet for filling up the posts 
of Additional District Judges is quashed and set aside. 
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. " 
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 -Jf20 I 0 commenced on the basis of an advertisement No. I /20 I 0 
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 of2008 is the subject 
matter. According to these writ petitioners, the High Court had failed to 
notify the correct number of vacancies for 20 I 0. The correct number of 
vacancies in 20 I 0 to be tilled up by direct recruitment ought to be 13. 
63 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 
r2o 16111 S.C.R. 
A 
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. 
6. The Registrar General of the High Court has filed reply 
affidavits. The stand of the High Court (Administration Side) was that 
8 
no vacancy for direct recruit from the Bar existed as on 20.04.2008. It is 
stated that in the year 2008, the actual vacancy as on 301h April, 2008 
and anticipated vacancy till 31" March 2009 were notified on the official 
Website of the High Cou1t. The said Notification reads thus: 
c 
D 
Actual Vacancy as on 30.04.2008 
Anticipated 
Vacancy 
till 
31.03.2009 
By 
Promotion 
Promotion (by way 
By promotion from 
from Sub-Judges 
of 
Selection) 
Sub-Judges 
on 
on basis of metit-
through 
limited 
basis of merit-cum-
cum-seniority 
competitive 
seniotity 
examination 
18 
34 
11 
Note: In the event of issuance of notification by the State 
Governmentregarding induction of I 0 Adhoc A.D.Js. of the Fast 
Track Courts in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service on regular 
basis, in view of the recommendation of the Court made vi de 
E 
letter Nos.6949/ Apptt. Dated 3rd November 2007 and 2819/ Apptt. 
Dated 11.04.2008, the actual vacancies as on 30.04.2009 in the 
Promotee Quota shall be reduced to 08." 
After initiation of the impugned selection process for 2008, a Writ Petition 
No.4159/2008 was filed in the High Court in which directions
were issued 
F 
to the High Court to fill up 21 vacancies out of 42 vacancies by promotion 
of Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination 
and the rest of 21 vacancies by direct recruitment. The matter was, 
therefore, referred to the selection committee. In the meantime, however, 
the Judicial Officers challenged the decision of the High Court by way 
of present S.LP. (Civil) No. 9883/2009 in which interim stay of operation 
G 
of the directions issued by the High Comt was granted on 91h April,· 
2009. The said interim order was later modified on 241h September 20 I 0, 
in the following terms: 
·''List alongwith the batch·of T.C.22 of :!nOJ. 
Since the matter has been pending at the stage of 
H 
advertisement of 2008, we modify the order passed by the
.. 
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
previous Bench dated 9.4.2009 by directing the process, 
. pursuant to the advertisement of 2008, to continue pending 
the hearing and final disposal of this Special Leave Petition. 
However, on completion of the exercise, vacancies will not 
be .filled till further orders. " 
Pursuant to the modification of the interim order, the High Court completed 
the selection process of filling up of the notified vacancies of2008 by 
way of promotion. On a further application filed, this Court on S•h August 
2011 permitted the High Court to make appointments concerning the 
said selection process of2008. The said order reads thus: 
"In modification of our order dated 24'" September 2010, 
the High Court is free to make appointments subject to the 
result of the special leave petition. 
The Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, allowed. " 
Pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the High Court submitted 
recommendations to the State Government for promotion of3 I Officers 
of Sub-Judge Cadre as per the advertisement issued in 2008 to fill up the 
vacancies in terms of Rule 4(b) and 4(c). The High Court submitted 
another recommendation to the State Government for promotion of 17 
more Officers. 
7. 
It is then asserted by the High Court that when the selection 
process of2008 was commenced and completed, there was no vacancy 
for direct recruit quota. The affidavit also refers to the fact that 8
vacancies 
of direct quota were notified in the year 20 I 0 vi de High Court 
memorandum dated 4'h November 2010 for the relevant period, which 
reads thus: 
"Actual vacancies in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Service accrued during the period from 18.07.2008 till date 
By Promotion 
Promotion (by 
By direct 
Total Vacancies 
from Sub-Judges 
way of Selection) 
recruitment 
on basis of merit-
through limited 
from Bar 
cum-seniority 
·competitive 
Examination 
28 
08 or 09 
07 or08 
44 
Memo 7671/Apptt. Dated Ranchi the 4'" November, 2010 
Copy forwarded to Scientist (D), N.I.C., Jharkhand High 
Court Ranchi. 
65 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] II S.C.R. 
A 
He is requested to put the aforesaid vacancies in the 
official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. " 
The High Cou11 with a view to fill up those vacancies, commenced 
the process vide advertisement No.O I /20 I 0. Pursuant to the said 
advertisement, the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions appeared 
B 
in the preliminary examination held oil 291h September 2011 and the main 
examination held on 271h November 2011 along with other candidates. 
Only 32 candidates could qualify the main examination, who were called 
for viva-voce held on 3rd February 2012. Out of those candidates, only 
15 candidates including the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions 
successfully qualified all the three rounds. However, as per the merit 
C wise rank of successful candidates, the names of the said writ petitioners 
were placed at lower position. Thus, the first 8 meritorious candidates 
were recommended for appoi'ntment against the vacant posts to be filled 
by the process of direct recruitment. It is also mentioned in the affidavit 
that the appointment of the candidates made against the selection process 
0 
for 2008, the candidates were made aware that their appointment was 
subject to the final decision of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9883/2009. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
8. It is asserted by the High Cout1 that the writ petitioners in 
connected writ petitions, who participated in the subsequent selection 
process
cannot get any advantage qua the selection process of 2008. 
For, they participated in the selection process commenced on the basis 
of advertisement No. I of20 I 0. Similarly, they cannot claim any relief in 
respect of fresh vacancy which was notified in the year 2012, vide 
Notification dated 22"d March, 2012. That notification reads thus: 
''JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. RANCHI 
NOTIFICATION 
No. 102/A. The Vacancies of the Jharkhand Superior 
Judicial Service including the future vacancies till 
31.12.2012 are hereby notified in the following manner:-
By promotion 
Promotion (by way 
By direct recruitment 
from Civil Judge 
of selection) 
from Bar (25%)-
(Sr. Division) on 
through limited 
under Rule 4(a) of 
the basis of 
competitive 
Rules, 2001 
merit-cum-
Examination 
seniority (65% )-
(I 0%)-under Rule 
under Rule 4(b) 
4(c) of Rules, 2001 
of Rules, 2001 
57+7=64 
Nil 
5 (+8*)
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
67 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid 69 
A 
notified vacancies will also be subject to final decision of 
the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal 
(Civil) No. 988312009. 
Also, all the earlier advertised vacancies are hereby recalled 
a11d restructured in the above manner. 
B 
"'Note:- The recommendation fo1· fllli11g up of 08 vacancies 
of Direct Recruit Quota has already been made to the State 
Government for issuance of necessary Notification vide 
Letter No. 1959/Apptt. Dated 10.02.2012 and thus the 
vacancy under this Quota till 31.12.2012 remains 05(/ive). 
c 
Dated: 22'"1 March, 2012 
By Order, 
Registrar General" 
The vacancy po~ition as on 31" December 2012 was revised and 
duly notified vide Notification dated 191h September 2012, which reads 
D 
thus: 
"JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI 
NOTIFICATION 
No.275/A The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior 
E 
Judicial Service till 31.12.2012 as notified vide Notification 
No.102/A dated 22"J March 2012 is revised and notified in 
the following manner:-
By promotion from 
Promotion (by way of By direct recruitment 
Civil Judge 
selection) through 
from Bar (25%)- under 
(Sr.Division) on the 
limited competitive 
Rule 4(a) of rules 200 I 
basis of merit-cum-
examination (10%)-
seniority ( 65%) -
under Rule 4(c) of 
under Rule 4 (b) of 
rules, 2001 
rules, 2001 
68* 
Nil 
08 
It is made clear that appointment
over the aforesaid notified 
vacancies will subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble 
Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 
No. 988312009. 
F 
G 
H
68 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 11 S.C.R. 
Note: In the event of the issuance of Notification by the State 
Govt. regarding Promotion of 28 Officers of the rank of Civil 
Judge (Sr.Division) in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Service in view of recommendation of the Court as made 
vide letter no.9593/Apptt. Dated 17'1' July 2012, the actual 
vacancy as on 31.12.2012 under this quota [i.e. under Rule 
4(b)} shall be reduced to 40. 
Dated: 19'" September. 2012" 
By Order 
Sdl-
Registrar General 
9. It is stated that the vacancy position as on 31" December 
2012 was notified on the basis of the sanctioned strength of 174 at the 
relevant time. That sanctioned strength was later on increased to 191 on 
creation of 17 permanent posts of Superior Officers @ 10% of existing 
strength. In paragraph 20 of the reply affidavit, the vacancy position as 
calculated on the basis of amended Rules (as amended on 14'h December 
2011) has been mentioned as follows: 
Sanctioned strength 
By pro1mtion from 
PronDtion (by way 
By direct 
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) 
of selection through 
recruitment 
on the basis of irerit-
limited competitive 
from Bar 
cum-seniority 
examination 
(65%)-Rule 4(b) 
(10%)-Rule 4(Q 
(25%)-Rule 
4(a) 
Sanctioned 
124 
19 
48 
Strength-19 I 
Present worldng 
68 
20(-1 *) 
36 
strength-124 
-
Present v.icancies 
56-1*=55 
Nil 
12 
(*excess adjusted) 
10. It is then stated that pursuant to the decision of this Court in 
Civil Appeal N os.6647-6649/2012
(filed by officers posted as Additional 
G 
District Judges, Fast Track Courts), vide letter dated 20'
11 February2013 
the State Government was requested to create 13 permanent posts to 
accommodate the 22 appellants in the said Civil Appeals on condition 
that in the event ofnon qualifying ofany of the appellants in the selection 
process to be conducted in terms of the direction given by this Court in 
the said decision, the equal number of such created posts of District 
H 
Judge will be abolished. After due consideration, the vacancy position of
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
69 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service was notified vide Notification 
A 
dated 22"d February 2013 which reads thus: 
"HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI 
NOTIFICATION 
No.451A. The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Service as notified earlier vide Notification No.2751A dated 19'1' 
B 
September, 2012 is hereby recalled and further revised till date in 
the following manner:-
By promotion from 
Promotion (by way 
By direct recruitment 
Civil Judge (Sr. 
of selection) 
from Bar(25%)-under 
Division)on the basis 
through limited 
Rule 4(a)ofrules, 2001 
of merit-cum-seniority 
competitive 
(65%)-under Rule 4(b) 
examination 
ofrules,200 I 
(10%)-under Rule 
4(c)ofRules, 2001 
55 
Nil 
22*+03"=25 
It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid notified 
vacancies will be subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble 
Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.98831 
2009. 
Note:- 1 * 22 Vacancies for the appellants of Civil Appeal 
Nos.6647,6648 & 6649 of 2012. 
2. "03 Vacancies for Direct Recruitment from Bar. 
3. Taking into account the 13 posts likely to be createdfrom 
the end of the State Government. 
c 
D 
E 
By Order 
Sdl-A.K.Choudhnary _ F 
Registrar General !IC 
Dated: 22"d February, 2013 
Memo No.16441Apptt.Dated Ranchi, the 22"" February, 2013 
Copy forwarded to the lie NJC Cell, High Court of 
Jharkhand, Ranchi for uploading the above notification in 
the
official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi 
immediately. 
Sdl-22. 02.2013 
Registrar General lie" 
G 
H
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
11. It is also pointed out that the Standing Committee of the High 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Court vi de minutes dated 18'
11 February 2014 assessed the vacancy 
position as on 201h February 2014 as under: 
Sanctioned 
Working 
Vacancy as 
SI. 
Strengd1 
Strength as on 
No 
Oil 
20.02.2014 
20.022014 
1 
By promotion from Civil 
134 
60 
74• 
Judge 9Sr.Division) on the 
(74-4*)=70 
basis of merit-cum-seniority 
(65%)-under Rule 4(b) of 
rules. 2001 
2 
Promotion( by 
way 
of 
21 
17 
4 
selection)through 
limited 
c ompe ti ti ve 
e xamina ti on( I 0% )-under 
Rule 4( c) of Rules, 2001 
3 
By direct recruitment from 
51 
55 
Excess 4* 
Bar (25%)-under Rule 4(a) 
(excess 
of Rules,200 I 
may 
be 
adiusted) 
In other affidavits filed on behalf of the High Court by the Registrar 
General, the above factual position has been reiterated. 
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 
The leading appeal concerns the selection process commenced in 2008. 
The High Court has set aside the said selection process on the finding 
that 50% of the posts have already been filled up by the promotees on 
the basis of merit-cum-seniority and as a result of which the left over 42 
vacancies should be filled by promotion from the subordinate Judge/ 
Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of Limited Competitive 
G 
Examination and by the direct recruits. in equal proportion. There can be 
no difficulty in accepting the argument that
the amended Rules providing 
for the ratio to be maintained between the promotees and direct recruits 
became effective on 201h August 2004 and had prospective application. 
Thus, the factual position as obtained on 2om August 2004 would become 
relevant. 
H
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
71 
[A. M. KHANWJLKAR, J.] 
13. Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed prior to the 
A 
amendment of20.08.2004 read thus: 
Rule -4: - Appointment to tile service- Appointment to the 
service, which shall in the first instance 01·dinarily 
be to the post of additional district judge, shall 
be made by the governor, in consultation with 
8 
High Court:-
(a) 
By direct recruitment of persons as 
recommended by the High Court for such 
appointment under clause (2) of Article 233 of 
the Constitution of India; and 
C 
(b) By promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis 
from amongst the officers belonging to the 
Jharkhand service provided that where the merit 
of the officers is equal in all respects, seniority 
shall prevail and be given weightage. · 
o 
Rule-5: Of tile total posts i11 tile cadre of tile service 67% 
sliall be filled in by promotion am/ 33% by <lirect 
recruitment: 
Provided that the State Government may, in 
consultation with the High Court, from time to time 
E 
deviate from the aforesaid percentage in either 
direction. 
Rule 8:- 8. Seniority: 
(a) Seniority inter se of direct recruits shall be 
determined in accordance with the dates of their 
respective appointments to the service. 
(b) Seniority inter se of promoted officers shall 
be determined on the basis of their seniority as 
existing in the Jharkhand Judicial service 
immediately prior to his appointment under these 
rules. 
(c) 
If at any time more
than one direct recruit is 
appointed in the service, the inter se seniority of 
such appointees will be determined in accordance 
F 
G 
H
72 
A 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
with the order of merit as obtaining in the select 
list at the time of his appointment. 
(d) 
Seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis promoted 
officers shall be determined with reference to the 
dates on which his appointments actually are 
made: 
Provided, however, when a direct recruit and a 
. promoted officer are appointed on the same date, 
the promoted officer shall rank senior to the direct 
recruit." 
c 
14. Resultantly, appointments made prior to 2004 were governed 
by the Rules as applicable at the relevant time. As per that dispensation, 
the direct recruits quota was 33% of the total posts. That was obviously 
in excess of25% now specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 
20.08.2004 pursuant to the decision of this Court). Notably, the State of 
Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in C.A.No.1867 /2006 before this Court 
D 
in which it has been stated that no vacancy against 25%quota for direct . 
recruitment existed in the State of Jharkhand at that time. This affidavit 
~as filed on 26'h August 2008 after the amended Rules were notified 
and came into force w.e.f. 20•h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling 
up of34 posts of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive 
E 
Examination from amongst the members of Jharkhand Subordinate Judges 
having more than 5 years of experience and 18 posts from merit-cum-
seniority basis amongst the Civil Judge (Senior Division), was issued in 
2008 on the
basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit 
quota was available. That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit 
filed by the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment has 
F 
committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about 
the vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004 - before recording 
a finding against the High Court and the State Government and to reject 
their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruit was available 
as on 30.04.2008. 
G 
15. Indeed, the High Court in the impugned judgment has adverted 
to the decision of this Court in All India Judf(es' Association & Ors. 
Vs Union of /11dia & Ors. 1 which has enunciated the principle of roster 
and the ratio to be followed for the post of Additional District Judge. 
Indisputably, J?Ursuant to the decision of this Court the Rules were 
H 
1 (2002) 4 sec 247
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
amended, which came into effect from 20•h August 2004. In paragraph 
27 to 29 of the said decision, this Court has considered the question 
regarding the method of recruitment to the postin the cadre of Higher 
. Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. The 
same reads thus: 
"27. Another question which falls for consideration is the 
method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher 
Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District 
Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for 
recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by 
promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate 
Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The subordinate 
iudiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial 
system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, 
that it should beco111e as strong as possible. The weight on 
the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate 
;udiciary. While we have accepted the reco111mendation of 
the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in 
the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary, it is at the same 
time necessary that the judicial officers, hard-working as 
they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they 
keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest 
pronounce111ents, and it is for this reason that the Shetty 
Commission has recom111ended the establishment
of a Judicial 
· Academy, which is ve1y necessary. At the sa111e time, we are 
of the opinion 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 .. While we agree with the Shelly Commission that the 
recruitment to the Higher Judicidl 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 ai1d 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 relutively junior 
and other officers to improve and to compete with each other 
so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we 
73 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
74 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r2016l 11 S.C.R. 
expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial 
Service will further improve. In order to achieve this. while 
.the ratio of 75 per cent appointment bv promotion and 25 
per cent bv direct recruitme11f 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 posts in the Higher 
Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of 
principle of merit-cum-seniority. 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 
<!2SIJl11ination for which the qualifving 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. 
28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct 
that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre 
of District Judf?es will be: 
(l)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil 
Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-
cum-seniority 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 re5pective 
High Courts. 
(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High 
Courts as early as possible. 
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 a large number of-cases have been instituted in
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] . 
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 the Higher 
Judicial Service. The quota for promotion which we have 
prescribed is 50 per cent by following the principle "merit-
cum-seniority ''. 25 per cent 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. 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 40-point roster which 
has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if eve1; 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 40-point roster has 
been considered and approved by this Court in R.K. 
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab1. 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 40-point 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 easel 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 ~ystem 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 necessmy by 31-3-2003." 
(emphasis supplied) 
75 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
76 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f20161 11 S.C.R. 
16. Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct 
recruitment was available as on 30'" April, 2008, no fault can be found 
with the selection process commenced by the High Court for appointment 
in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service by promotion on the 
basis of merit through Limited Competitive Examination. The High Court 
in the. impugned judgment has glossed over the effect of filling up the 
vacancies in the ratio of25:25, which inevitably will exceed the quota of 
posts for direct recruits as on 30.04.2008. That would disturb the roster 
point and is impermissible in terms of Rule 8 as amended. The notification 
dated 20.08.2004 amending Rule 5 and 8 reads thus: 
''Government of Jharkhand 
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and 
Rajbhasha 
NOTIFICATION 
Ranchi Date 20. 08.2004 
No. 6/Estab Jud 61012001 Perso. 4544/after repealing· 
existing Rule 5 7 8 (d) of Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Services (recruitment, Appointment and conditions of 
Services) Rules 2001 of Departmental Notification No. 1246 
datea 'QR.05.2001, Rule 5 and 8(d) are substituted as 
follows:- · 
Rule 5: Of the total post in the cadre of service. 
(i)50% shall be filled by promotion from amongst the Sub 
Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing a 
suitability test as may from time to time be prescribed by the 
High Court. 
(ii) 25% shall be fllled 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. 
(iii) 25% shall be filled in by direct recruitment from the Bar 
on the basis of test and viva-voce conducted by the High 
Court. 
8(d) The following roster shall be maintained after 
appointment/promotion to fix the seniority of the direct . 
recruits vis-a-vis proniote. officer . . The roster shall be as 
follows for every unit of JOO posts.
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
77 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
(i) For promote officers ji-om the service-
A 
1,2,5,6,9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18,21,22,25,26,29,30,33,34,37,38,41,42,45, 
46,49,50,53,54,57,58,61,62,65,66,69,70, 73,74, 77,78,81,82,85,86, 
89,90,93,94,97,98. 
(ii) For promote officers form the limited competitive examination 
of Sub Judge, 
B 
3, 7,1J.J5, 19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,63,67, 71, 75, 79,83,87,91,95,99. 
(iii) 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, JOO. 
By order of Governor 
C 
(Shri Nitya Shankar Mukhopaddya) 
Deputy Secretary of State 
No. 6/Estab Jud 61012001 Perso. 4544/afler Ranchi Date 
20.08.2004 
Copy to- Superintendent, Government press, Doranda 
D 
Ranchi, with request that be published in next edition of 
Jharkhand official Gazette. 
Deputy Secretary of Govt, " 
I 7. The position as it stood as on 30'
11 April 2008, is stated in 
paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the High Court dated 30'
11 March, 
2016, which reads thus: 
"That it is stated that as on 30.04.2008, the sanctioned strength of 
the Jharkhand Superior Juqicial Service was 145 and working 
strength was 93, which is shown herein below:-
By Promotion from 
Promotion (By way 
By direct recruitment 
Sub-Judges on the basis 
of selection) through 
from Bar (25%) 
of merit-cum-seniority 
limited competitive 
(50%) 
Examination (25%) 
Sanctioned S a·ength - 145 
73 
36 
36 
Working strength= 93 
55 
00 
38
Vacancies= 52 
18 
36-2=34 
02 (surplus) 
E 
F 
G 
H
78 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
rzoI6] I I S.C.R. 
18. Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota of 
direct recruit as on 30'h August 2008, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 
to 11 in the leading appeal), who could paiticipate 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 
of2008. 
19. 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 in service 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. This aspect has been glossed over by the 
High Court in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to observe that as no 
post for direct recruits existed as on 301h April, 2008, the challenge to the 
selection process to fill up the vacancy by promotion
through Limited 
Competitive Examination, at the instance of aspiring candidates by direct 
recruitment cannot be countenanced. The Writ Petition filed by such 
aspiring candidates (WP(S) No. 4159/2008), therefore, ought to have 
been dismissed by the High Court. 
20. Having said this, it must follow that the selection process of 
2008 which has been completed pursuant to the liberty given by this 
Court by way of interim order is proper and has become final. On this 
finding, the challenge in the companion Writ Petitions to the selection 
process commenced for the year 2010 does not merit interference. In 
that, the vacancy position as on the date of the notification (i.e. 411t 
November, 2010), for commencing selection process in 2010, were only 
upto 8 vacancies for appointment by direct recruitment from the Bar. 
None of the writ petitioners before this Cou1t claim to be within the first 
8 merit list candidates. The petitioners were placed at serial No.9 
onwards. The first 8 candidates having been appointed, the selection 
process for 2010 would get exhausted and considered as complete. 
Merely because the names of the writ petitioners appear in the selection
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 
list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right in getting appointed. The 
vacancies have to be filled up in conformity \Vith the extant Regulations. 
The selection process in which the writ petitioners participated, was 
commenced on the basis of the stated notification for 8 notified vacancies 
and appointments have been made of the meritorious candidates. That 
selection process must be treated as having come to an end. The fact 
that the notifications for subsequent selection process (commenced after 
2010), issued by the High Court notifying different or higher number of 
posts for direc;t recruitment, can be of no avail to the selection process 
of20 I 0. That changed position is ascribable to subsequent period on the 
basis of availability of posts for direct recruits. Not for selection process 
of 2010. Similarly, the fact that one candidate amongst the appointed 
eight candidates after due selection subsequently resigned, no right can 
accrue to the Writ Petitioner(s) on completion of the selection process 
of20 I 0. Reliance placed on Rule 21 which requires preparation of select 
list and to notify the same or to remain valid for one year from the date 
of being notified, is also inapposite. That is not a Rule mandating 
preparation ofa wait list of the selected candidates. No express provision 
for retaining the select list as wait I ist for one year has been brought to 
our notice. On the
other hand, the effect of Rule 22 is that once the 
names of candidates from the notified select list are recommended to 
the Government proportionate to the vacancies available for appointment; 
and recommended candidates are so appointed or on expiry of one year 
from notifying the select list whichever is earlier, the select list would 
become ineffective qua the subject selection process. For, that selection 
process is concluded. None of the writ petitioners can, therefore, 
succeed in getting the relief claimed by them. 
, . 
21. The decision in the case of Rak/ti Rlly & Ors. Vs. Hixfl 
Court of Del/ti and Ors.1 will be of no avail to the writ petitioners and 
wou Id 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 of20 I 0. 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 22"d February 2013 for the year 2012, they 
cannot be given any relief. 
2 r2010) 2 sec 637 
79 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
80 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
f2016l 11 S.C.R. 
22. Considering the above, the Civil Appeal must succeed and is . 
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Cou11 of 
Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP(S) No.4159/2008 dated 29'
11 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 tenns. 
23. We order accordingly. No order as to costs. 
Divya Pandey 
Mailers disposed of.