Supreme Court of India

P.S.Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 9 May, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2768, 2008 (7) SCC 70, 2008 AIR SCW 4602, ILR(KER) 2008 (2) SC 682, 2008 (3) SERVLJ 268 SC, 2008 (7) SCALE 564, (2008) 3 LAB LN 665, (2008) 4 SCT 560, (2009) 1 SERVLR 590, (2008) 7 SCALE 564, (2008) 5 ESC 729

Author:
P.P. Naolekar

Bench:
S.B. Sinha
,
P.P. Naolekar
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
[arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18307 of 2007]

P.S. Gopinathan .... Appellant

vs.

State of Kerala & Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.:

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was directly recruited to the post of Munsiff and

was later promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge. Thereafter, the

appellant was promoted to the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service,

whereas the respondents 3 to 5 were directly recruited to the Higher

Judicial Service.

3. The subordinate judiciary in the State of Kerala consisting of

District Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Subordinate Judges,

Munsiffs, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Judicial Magistrates
of the Second Class, was functioning in the matter of appointment

and promotions as two separate wings, (1) consisting of the Kerala

State Higher Judicial Service and the Kerala Civil Judicial Service

and (2) the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service. The Higher Judicial

Service consisted of District Judges. The Kerala Civil Judicial

Service consisted of Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs, whereas the

Kerala Criminal Judicial Service consisted of Chief Judicial

Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and Judicial

Magistrates of the Second Class. The Civil Judicial Service and the

Criminal Judicial Service came into being as a result of the orders

issued under G.O.(Ms) 24/73/Home dated 12.2.1973 and with that the

subordinate judiciary was also bifurcated for the first time into Civil

Wing and Criminal Wing. The Higher Judicial Service all along

constituted one separate Service to which after the implementation of

the G.O. dated 12.2.1973, only the Civil Judicial Service Officers are

eligible to be considered. Thus, there was subordinate Civil Judicial

Service and the Criminal Judicial Service. Promotion to the Higher

Judicial Service was available from the Kerala Civil Judicial Service

only.

4. The Higher Judicial Service was constituted under the Kerala

State Higher Judicial Service Rules published on 18.7.1961. It
consisted of two categories : Category 1 - Selection Grade District &

Sessions Judge and Category 2 : District & Sessions Judge (including

Additional District & Sessions Judge). Appointment to Category 2

was to be made by transfer (promotion) from the category of Civil

Judicial Service or by direct recruitment from the Bar. The number of

posts to be filled up by direct recruitment is 1/3rd of the permanent

posts in Categories (1) and (2) taken together. While under the said

Rules, a select list of subordinate Judges (Civil category) was

prepared on 8.1.1991 and approved by the Administrative Committee

of the High Court, was also approved by the Full Court on 11.1.1991.

The Government also approved the select list of Subordinate Judges

by its order dated 19.11.1991 for appointment as District & Sessions

Judges. The appellant was ranked No. 2 in the said list. A letter

dated 10.12.1991 was addressed by the Registrar, High Court, to the

Commissioner and Secretary to the Government in Home

Department, wherein it was stated that the sanction had been

accorded for the establishment of three Special Courts at

Thiruvananthapuram for the trial of mark list cases in the light of the

Supreme Court direction dated 20.8.1991; the Government had also

sanctioned three posts of District Judges; as per the Government
Order, the Government had approved 11 Sub-Judges for appointment

as District Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service and in

order to provide three District Judges in the new Special Courts to be

established at Thiruvananthapuram, the actual appointment as District

Judges of the following three officers was considered necessary to be

made:(i) P.S. Gopinathan; (ii) K.S. Gopinathan Pillai; and (iii) M.V.

Viswanathan; and, therefore, the Government orders and notifications

appointing the above three officers as a panel of District Judges in the

Kerala State Higher Judicial Service may be issued immediately.

5. In place of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service and the Kerala

Criminal Judicial Service, a common Service was brought into force

by the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 published in the Gazettee

on 31.12.1991 and amendment to the Kerala Higher Judicial Service

Rules, 1961 vide G.O.(P) No. 47/92/Home dated 28.2.1992 was given

retrospective effect from 1.1.1992, the date of coming into force of

the Kerala Judicial Service Rules. The common Service constituted

under the said Rules consisted of the following categories of officers:

Category 1 : Subordinate Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates
Category 2: Munsiffs/Magistrates.
6. After the enactment of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991,

the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of

Article 233(1)
appointed three Sub-Judges, including the appellant, as

District & Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service

on 14.1.1992, without prejudice to the claims of candidates to be

recruited from the Bar to satisfy the provisions in Rule 2(b) of the

Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1961.

7. Before the appointment order of the appellant was issued on

14.1.1992, the new Rules integrating two lower subordinate Services

had come into force and the question arose whether the vacancies in

the three courts created as per the direction of the Supreme Court

would be filled up by temporary appointments and the order of the

Governor issued could be treated as appointing the officers

temporarily without there being any claim of seniority by the officers

who had been appointed to fill up those vacancies. The

Administrative Committee of the High Court approved and made the

following recommendations among other matters:

"(1) The panel of Sub Judges prepared by the High Court and
approved by the Government be annulled except in the case of
those already appointed from the panel;

(2) Even in the case of those appointed from the panel after
1.1.1992, their appointment may be treated as temporary
without probationary rights. Their seniority in the category be
decided later after a fresh panel is prepared;

(3) Steps be taken to prepare a fresh panel for appointment
as District Judges from among Sub Judges/Chief Judicial
Magistrates in service on 1.1.1992;

(4) While taking such steps, the case of Shri K.N.
Balakrishna Panicker, the senior most Sub Judge who had been
superseded last time, be considered after assessing his
judgments."

The Committee recommended that the case of K.N. Balakrishna

Panicker (respondent No. 6), the senior-most Sub-Judge who had

been superseded last time be also considered after assessing his

judgments. The Full Court approved the recommendations made by

the Administrative Committee.

8. From the Official Memorandum issued by the High Court dated

9.9.2005, the reason for taking the decision for posting the appellant

on a temporary basis appears to be that the select list was prepared on

the basis of the seniority list which had been prepared before the

integration of the two Services, i.e. Civil Judicial Service and

Criminal Judicial Service. After the integration of the two Services,

the select list was prepared and the appointment order was issued on

the said basis, whereas before the appointment order was issued on

14.1.1992, the rules were amended and the two Services were
integrated. Therefore, there was a necessity to prepare the fresh

seniority list in the light of the integration of the Civil and Criminal

Wings of the State Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 1.1.1992. Pending

preparation of the combined seniority list, a posting order was issued

without any probationary rights.

9. On 29.2.1992, the High Court passed the order with regard to

the posting of the appellant who had been appointed as a District

Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service and he was posted

as an Additional District Judge, Kozhikode and was directed to hand

over his charge to the Additional Sub-Judge, Vadakara. The posting

of the appellant along with other officers was made temporary

without probationary rights and their seniority in the category of the

District Judges was to be determined later. By this order, the High

Court posted the appellant as Additional District Judge on temporary

basis without probationary rights and seniority was left open to be

considered on a later date.

10. The appellant joined service on 7.3.1992 as per the posting

order. Respondents 3 to 5 were the direct recruits from the Bar to the

Higher Judicial Service.

11. On 29.2.1992, Rule 2(b) of the Rules was substituted by

providing for the category of Chief Judicial Magistrates also to be a
feeder category for appointment to Category (2) of the Kerala State

Higher Judicial Service under the Service Rules, which came into

effect on 1.1.1992. While so, respondents 3 to 5 were directly

appointed as District Judges by the Governor. Respondents 3 and 4

were appointed on 31.3.1992 and they took charge on 2.4.1992,

whereas respondent 5 was appointed by order dated 30.5.1992 and he

took charge on 1.6.1992.

12. After the introduction of Service Rules, 1991, which came into

effect on 1.1.1992, the High Court drew a fresh panel of Sub-Judges

and Chief Judicial Magistrates for promotion as District & Sessions

Judges from the integrated seniority list of Sub-Judges and Chief

Judicial Magistrates. The fresh panel was approved by the Full Court

on 21.2.1992.

13. On 15.7.1992, the Governor of Kerala approved the panel of

Sub-Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates for appointment as District

& Sessions Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service,

without prejudice to the claim of the candidates to be recruited from

the Bar as provided in Rule 2(b) of the Kerala State Higher Judicial

Service Rules, 1961. In the said panel, respondent 6 (K.N

Balakrishna Panicker) was shown at Sl.No.1, whereas the appellant

was at Sl.No.2. On the same day, the Governor of Kerala was
pleased to appoint the Sub-Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates at

Sl.Nos. 1 to 8 in the panel approved in the Government Order as

District & Sessions Judges in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service

without prejudice to the claims of the candidates to be recruited from

the Bar. This appointment order indicates respondent 6 at Sl. No.1

and the appellant at Sl.No.2.

14. On 31.7.1992, the High Court passed an order whereunder the

appellant who was posted in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Kozhikode (now temporary District Judge) who had been appointed

as District & Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial

Service as per the Government Order, was allowed to continue in the

present post as regular District Judge. This order indicates that the

appellant was appointed temporarily as District Judge and by a later

appointment order issued by the Governor he was treated as a regular

District Judge and was allowed to continue on the same post.

15. On the basis of the office memorandum of High Court dated

29.9.1992, it was proposed to show the seniority of the appellant

below the 6th respondent. The appellant made a representation on

28.10.1992 to the High Court claiming that his appointment as

District & Sessions Judge should not be treated as a temporary one

and to treat him senior to respondents 3 to 6 in the category of
District & Sessions Judges. On 16.8.1994, a draft seniority list of

Selection Grade District & Sessions Judges was published. The

appellant was shown below respondents 3 to 6. While the appellant

was shown at Sl.No. 60, respondents 3 to 6 were shown at Sl.Nos. 56,

57, 58 and 59. The appellant again submitted a representation on

25.10.1994 challenging the assignment of seniority to the respondents

above the appellant. On 18.1.1995, the High Court issued an order

declaring completion of the probation period by the appellant. In the

said order, the commencement of the appellant's probation was

shown as on 31.7.1992 (the date when the second posting order was

issued). As per the representation, the commencement of the

probation of the appellant as on 31.7.1992 could not have been

shown. The appellant was appointed as District & Sessions Judge as

per the order and notification dated 14.1.1992 and joined duty on

7.3.1992 and continued to be in service without any break and, thus,

the commencement of the period of probation should have been from

that date. The appellant submitted representation to that effect on

17.4.1995. Thereafter, a reminder representation on 7.2.1998 and

another representation on 20.5.2000 were made by the appellant. On

18.12.2003, the High Court issued order permitting respondents 3 to
5 as Selection Grade District & Sessions Judges in preference to the

appellant. On 8.3.2004, the appellant filed representation

challenging the seniority list in the category of District & Sessions

Judges in Selection Grade given to the respondents in preference to

the appellant. On 12.3.2004, the High Court sent a communication to

the appellant stating that his representations for re-fixation of his

seniority in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge were under

consideration. The appellant's representation for advancing the date

of his promotion as Selection Grade District Judge would also be

considered. Thereafter on 1.9.2004, the High Court gave permission

to respondents 3 to 5 and the appellant to the category of Selection

Grade District Judges with retrospective effect from 3.7.2000,

12.7.2000, 12.7.2000 and 12.7.2000 respectively. In the said order,

the appellant was shown at Sl.No. 14, whereas respondents 3 to 5

were shown as Sl.Nos. 11,12 and 13 respectively. The appellant was

shown junior to respondents 3 to 5 in the category of Selection Grade

District Judges. Therefore, the appellant again submitted a

representation on 15.9.2004. On 2.11.2004, the High Court again

permitted respondents 3 to 5 as Super Time Scale District & Sessions

Judges w.e.f. 13.10.2004, 14.10.2004 and 28.10.2004 respectively,
whereas the appellant was retained as Selection Grade District &

Sessions Judge. Respondent 6 had already left the Judicial

Department while holding the post of District & Sessions Judge and

he was appointed as Railway Claims Tribunal.

16. On 22.5.2005, the appellant filed a writ petition before the

High Court of Kerala challenging the draft seniority list dated

16.8.1994, order dated 18.1.1995 (declaration of the probation of the

appellant), order dated 18.12.2003 (promotion of respondents 3 to 5

to the post of Selection Grade District & Sessions Judges) and order

dated 1.9.2004 [proceedings of the High Court (2nd respondent)

permitting respondents 3 to 5 as Super Time Scale District &

Sessions Judges]. On 9.9.2005, during pendency of the writ petition,

the High Court rejected the appellant's representation for re-fixation

of his seniority in the category of District & Sessions Judges. On

13.10.2005, the appellant's representation challenging the draft

seniority list was also rejected. The appellant challenged the Office

Memorandum dated 13.10.2005 by amendment of the writ petition.

On 19.2.2007, the learned Single Judge of the High Court referred the

case to be heard by a Bench of two Judges. It would be pertinent to

note that in the writ petition the appellant had not challenged the

Memorandum dated 15.7.1992 whereby the Governor of Kerala had
approved the fresh panel of Sub-Judges and Chief Judicial

Magistrates for appointment as District & Sessions Judges, the order

of appointment of the appellant from the panel as District & Sessions

Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service by order dated

15.7.1992 or the posting order dated 31.7.1992 whereby the appellant

was shown to be a temporary District Judge and was posted as regular

District Judge after the issuance of the order of appointment on the

post of District Judge by order dated 15.7.1992.

17. The Division Bench of the High Court has taken into

consideration various aspects which had arisen for determination of

the court, namely, as to which order, i.e. order dated 14.1.1992 or

order dated 15.7.1992 shall be taken to be the first appointment order

which is relevant for Rule 2(b) of the Kerala Higher Judicial Service

Rules; whether it is open to 2nd respondent- High Court to treat the

order dated 14.1.1992 passed by the Governor under
Article 233
to

have given the appellant status of a temporary employee appointed in

the Higher Judicial Service and not to treat that period of service as

on probation. The High Court further considered the effect of not

challenging the orders passed by the Governor on 15.7.1992 and

31.7.1992, by the appellant. Whether the appointment order issued

by the Governor under
Article 233
can be pronounced as having no
legal effect or illegal on account of violation of the rules which

provide for the integration of Civil and Criminal Wings and the order

of appointment being issued without taking into consideration the

integrated service on the feeder post.

18. The High Court held that the Governor is the appointing

authority of the District Judges in the State which shall be done by the

Governor in consultation with the High Court. The High Court while

issuing the order of posting treated the appellant as temporary and

acted entirely bonafide since the amendment including Chief Judicial

Magistrates in the feeder category for promotion as District Judges,

was not only on the anvil but, in fact, it was published on the same

day with retrospective effect from 1.1.1992. Since Rule 6 of the

Kerala Higher Judicial Service Rules declares that the seniority will

be determined on the first order of appointment, the High Court has

committed an error in treating the appellant's appointment as

temporary appointment, particularly when there is no indication in the

order of the appointing authority, namely, the Governor, that the

appointment of the appellant was temporary. However, since the

appellant has accepted the posting order treating him to be a

temporary employee while joining duty, the subsequent orders issued

approving the fresh panel consisting both of Sub-Judges and Chief
Judicial Magistrates in purported compliance of the mandate of the

Rules as amended, the appointment order of the Governor and

thereafter the posting order indicating him to be a temporary District

Judge and appointing him as regular employed District Judge have

not been challenged. Thus, the High Court was of the view that

since the appointment order dated 15.7.1992 issued by the competent

authority, namely, the Governor, had not been challenged by the

appellant, he cannot challenge the previous order since there can only

be one appointment order with reference to which seniority can be

ascertained under Rule 6 and the High Court took the appointment

order dated 15.7.1992 as the order of appointment of the appellant to

the post of District Judge in the Higher Judicial Service and

consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

19. It is submitted by Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant that the appellant's seniority has to be

counted from the date of his appointment on 14.1.1992 made by the

Governor in exercise of the powers under
Article 233
in consultation

with the High Court. Merely because the rule has been amended with

retrospective effect from 1.1.1992 whereby the feeder post to the

transfer (appointment) to the category of District & Sessions Judges

(including Additional District & Sessions Judges) was made from the
category of Subordinate Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates of the

Kerala Judicial Service instead of the category of Subordinate Judges

only, it is urged by the learned senior counsel that the post being

available prior to the rule being amended, the appellant's transfer

(appointment) to the post of District & Sessions Judge could not

have been treated as temporary appointment without probationary

rights. 20. It is urged by Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned senior

counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 that the appellant was

although appointed on 14.1.1992 his appointment for all purposes and

intent as expressly mentioned in the posting order dated 29.2.1992

had been treated as temporary appointment without probationary

rights which was accepted by the appellant by accepting the fresh

appointment order dated 15.7.1992 as permanent appointment on the

post of Category (2) District & Sessions Judge and, thus, the

appellant cannot now contend that the order dated 14.1.1992 was his

appointment on the permanent basis on the cadre post of Category (2)

District & Sessions Judge. That apart, it is submitted by the learned

senior counsel that the appellant having not challenged the order

dated 15.7.1992 or order dated 31.7.1992 issued by the High Court
posting him, is not entitled to get the seniority on the basis of the

order passed on 14.1.1992.

21. Shri L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondents 4 and 5 has submitted that although the post had accrued

when the old rules were in operation, the appointment has to be

treated under the old rules but authority can certainly say that the

appointment shall not be made under the old rules and can defer the

appointment until the new rules came into force.

22. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for

respondent No. 2 - Kerala High Court has supported the decision

taken by the High Court in treating the appointment of the appellant

dated 14.1.1992 as temporary appointment.

23. The relevant rules of the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service

Rules, 1961, which shall govern the appointment and seniority of

Category (2):District & Sessions Judges, read as under:

"1. Constitution.- The service shall consist of the following
categories, namely:-

Category (1) Selection Grade District and Sessions
Judge.

Category (2) District and Sessions Judge (including
Additional District and Sessions Judge).
2. Method of appointment.- (a) Appointment to category (1)
shall be made by the High Court by promotion from
category (2).

(b) Appointment to category (2) shall be made by
transfer from category 1, Subordinate Judges/Chief Judicial
Magistrates of the Kerala Judicial Service or by direct
recruitment from the Bar, provided that the number of posts in
category (2) to be filled up or reserved to be filled up by direct
recruitment shall be one-third of the permanent posts in
categories (1) and (2) taken together.

(c) Appointment by promotion to category (1) and
appointment by transfer to category (2) shall be made on the
basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only
where merit and ability are approximately equal.

3. Qualification.- (1)(a) No person appointed to category (2)
either by transfer or by direct recruitment shall be eligible for
promotion to category (1) unless he is an approved probationer
in category (2) on the date of occurrence of the vacancy.

(b) Omitted

(2) A candidate for appointment to category (2) from the
Bar shall satisfy, the following general conditions namely:-

xxx xxx xxx

4. Probation.- (a) Every person appointed to category (2)
shall, from the date on which he joins duty, be on probation for
a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of
three years.

(b) There shall be no probation for category (1).

5. Appointing Authority.- (1) All appointments to category
(1) shall be made by the High Court.
(2) All first appointments to category (2) whether by
direct recruitment or by transfer, shall be made by Governor in
consultation with the High Court.

5A. Postings and Transfers.- All postings and transfers of
persons appointed to categories (1) and (2) shall be made by
the High Court.

6. Seniority.- (1) The seniority of a person appointed either to
category (1) or category (2) shall, unless he has been reduced to
a lower rank as punishment, be determined with reference to
the date of the order of his first appointment to the said
category:

xxx xxx xxx"

Under Rule 1, the cadre of District & Sessions Judges is in two

categories: Category (1) relates to Selection Grade District &

Sessions Judges, whereas Category (2) relates to District & Sessions

Judges (including Additional District & Sessions Judges). Rule 2(b)

provides for appointment by transfer (promotion) to Category (2) i.e.

District & Sessions Judges (including Additional District &

Sessions Judges). Feeder post from 1.1.1992 shall be Subordinate

Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates of the Kerala Judicial Service or by

direct recruitment from the Bar. Under clause (c) of Rule 2, the

eligibility criteria for transfer/promotion to the post of District &

Sessions Judge shall be on the basis of merit and ability and seniority
shall be taken into consideration only where the merit and ability of

the promotee officer are approximately equal. Thus, the promotion to

the post of District & Sessions Judge in Category (2) from the post of

Subordinate Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate would be on the basis of

merit-cum-seniority. Under Rule 4, every person appointed to

Category (2) shall be on probation for a period of two years within

the continuous period of his service for three years from the date of

his joining duty on the promoted post. By virtue of sub-rule (2) of

Rule 5, the first appointment to Category (2), whether by direct

recruitment or by transfer, shall be made by the Governor in

consultation with the High Court. Rule 6 on which the emphasis is

laid by the appellant is in regard to the seniority of a person appointed

either to Category (1) or Category (2), i.e. District & Sessions

Judges, says that unless the person appointed is reduced to a lower

rank as punishment, his seniority shall be determined with reference

to the date of the order of his first appointment to the said category.

Therefore, for the purposes of ascertaining the seniority of an officer,

the date of the order of his first appointment will have a relevant

consideration under the rules.
24. It is an admitted fact that on 14.1.1992 the appellant was

appointed on the post of District & Sessions Judge by the Governor

in exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of
Article 233
,

without prejudice to the claim of candidates to be recruited from the

Bar to satisfy the provisions of Rule 2(b) of the Kerala State Higher

Judicial Service Rules, 1961. However, as there was an integration of

the Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service, the matter

was referred to the Administrative Committee and the Committee

recommended that the entire panel prepared of Sub-Judges (which

does not include the Chief Judicial Magistrates) and approved by the

Government be annulled except in the case of those already appointed

from the panel. The Administrative Committee further recommended

that the appointment from the panel after 1.1.1992 shall be treated as

temporary without probationary rights and their seniority in the

category be decided later after a fresh panel is prepared and the

directions were issued for preparation of the fresh panel. This

recommendation of the Administration Committee was accepted by

the Full Court. The reason for taking this decision was that the select

list was prepared on the basis of the seniority list which had been

prepared before integration of two Services. After the integration of
two Services w.e.f. 1.1.1992, the appointment order was issued by the

Governor on 14.1.1992 without taking into consideration the

integrated service of the Sub-Judges and the Chief Judicial

Magistrates. The appointment order of the appellant was issued on

14.1.1992. In pursuance thereof and the decision taken by the High

Court, a posting order was issued on 29.2.1992. The posting order

clearly specified that the appellant was being posted as Additional

District Judge on temporary basis without probationary rights in the

category of District Judges and his seniority in the category of

District Judges will be determined on a later date. The appellant

took charge of the post on 7.3.1992 without any demur or objection.

When the appellant was continuing on the post, respondents 3 to 5

were appointed as District & Sessions Judges in the quota of direct

recruits. Later on, a fresh panel for the transfer/promotion was

prepared by the High Court which was approved by the Governor and

a fresh appointment order issued on 15.7.1992 without prejudice to

the claim of the candidates recruited from the Bar. In pursuance of

the appointment order issued by the Governor on 15.7.1992, on

31.7.1992 the appellant was posted on the same post where he was

serving on the post of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The posting
order categorized him as `now temporary District Judge' and he was

allowed to continue on the post as a regular District Judge. The

posting order treated the appellant as a temporary District Judge till

that date and he was treated as a regular District Judge from the date

of posting, i.e. 31.7.1992, in pursuance of the order issued on

15.7.1992. All along by posting order dated 29.2.1992 as well as by

posting order dated 31.7.1992, the appellant's appointment on the

post of District & Sessions Judge has been treated on temporary

basis. Yet, the appellant kept silence, accepted the orders and

worked on the post as temporarily appointed and posted District &

Sessions Judge. It is after lapse of considerable period he made a

representation on 28.10.1992 complaining that he was appointed by

appointment order dated 14.1.1992 and in pursuance of his posting

orders he had joined the duty on 7.3.1992; thereafter he had been

continuously working on the post; later on, direct recruitment was

made whereby three District & Sessions Judges were appointed but

he was being proposed to be ranked below K.N. Balakrishna

Panicker; he cannot be treated as junior to Panicker in the light of the

definition of the term `appointed to service' as occurring under the

rules and other provisions governing service and seniority he is
entitled to be ranked above Panicker; in view of the vested rights

which accrued to him on the basis of his legal entitlement in the light

of the inclusion of his name in the select list, the admitted vacancy

available and the order of appointment passed by the Governor, his

appointment as District & Sessions Judge cannot at all be treated as

temporary.

25. The law of equitable estoppel by acquiescence has been clearly

stated by Fry, J. in Wilmott v. Barber, 1880, 15 Ch D 96, 105: 43 LT

95. It has been said therein that the acquiescence which will deprive

a man of his legal rights should amount to fraud. A man is not to be

deprived of his legal right unless he has acted in such a way as would

make it fraudulent for him to set up those rights. What, then, are the

elements or requisites necessary to constitute fraud of that

description, are stated thus:

(i) The plaintiff (i.e. the party pleading acquiescence) must

have made a mistake as to his legal rights;

(ii) The plaintiff must have expended some money or must

have done some act (not necessarily upon the defendant's land)

on the faith of the mistaken belief;

(iii) The defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know

of the existence of his own right which is inconsistent with the
right claimed with the right claimed by the plaintiff. If he does

not know of it, he is in the same position, as the plaintiff, and

the doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon conduct with a

knowledge of your legal rights;

(iv) The defendant, the possessor of the legal right, must know

of the plaintiff's mistaken belief of his rights. If he does not,

there is nothing which calls upon him to assert his own rights;

and

(v) The defendant, the possessor of the legal right must have

encouraged the plaintiff in his expenditure of money, or in the

other acts which he has done, either directly or by abstaining

from asserting his legal right. Where all these elements exist,

there is fraud of such a nature as will entitle the court to

restrain the possessor of the legal right from exercising it, but

nothing short of this will do.

These principles were followed and applied in many cases in India.

26. The appellant was appointed by the Governor by transfer/

appointment order issued on 14.1.1992 and his seniority was to be

considered as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules which says that the

seniority of a person appointed shall be determined with reference to
the date of the order of his first appointment to the category. Thus,

apparently when the order dated 14.1.1992 was issued by the

Governor, it would be the first appointment for the determination of

the seniority of the appellant. There is nothing in the order dated

14.1.1992 on the basis of which it can be treated to be an appointment

on temporary basis made by the Governor. It is apparent from the

posting order dated 29.2.1992 that the High Court, because of the

integration of two Services w.e.f. 1.1.1992 prior to the issuance of the

order of appointment on 14.1.1992, has treated the order of

appointment as a temporary one and, therefore, the posting order

specifically mentioned that the appellant's appointment would be

temporary without there being any probationary rights. Thereafter on

21.2.1992, a fresh panel was prepared by the High Court for the

purposes of transfer/promotion to Category (2):District & Sessions

Judge and the proposal for promotion of the officers in that list has

been accepted by the Governor by issuance of the order of

appointment including that of the appellant on 15.7.1992. On

31.7.1992, the appellant's posting order was issued. Posting order

clearly indicated that the appellant was working as a temporary

District Judge and by virtue of the order issued on 15.7.1992 he shall
be treated as permanent District Judge. While issuing the posting

order of the appellant in pursuance of the order dated 14.1.1992, the

High Court has committed a mistake in treating it to be an order of

temporary appointment of the appellant when there was nothing to

this effect in the appointment order. When the posting order was

issued on 29.2.1992, the appellant was well aware of the order of his

appointment dated 14.1.1992 whereby he was appointed on

permanent basis on the post of District & Sessions Judge, yet when

the posting order was issued treating him to be a temporary appointee

which was inconsistent with the order dated 14.1.1992, the appellant

did not raise any objection and readily accepting the posting order

joined the service on 7.3.1992 as temporary Additional District

Judge. The posting order dated 29.2.1992 specifically mentioned that

he has been posted as a temporary Additional District Judge without

any probationary rights and thus the appellant was well aware of the

mistaken belief of the High Court in appointing and posting him as a

temporary employee. As there was no objection and protest by the

appellant, a fresh panel prepared, recommended and fresh order of

appointment of appellant was issued by the Governor. Again when

the fresh appointment order was issued on 15.7.1992 by the Governor
and the appellant was posted on 31.7.1992 treating his first

appointment order as a temporary appointment, no protest was made

by him. In view of the fact that the Governor issued an order dated

15.7.1992 even when order of 14.1.1992 was in existence, it is

apparent that the appointing authority has also treated the first order

dated 14.1.1992 as an order of appointment on temporary basis. It is,

therefore, apparent from the second appointment order that the

appointing authority as well as the posting authority have all along

treated the appellant as a temporary District Judge, but the appellant

did not object on both occasions when he joined on 7.3.1992 and on

31.7.1992 of he being treated as temporary District Judge. The act

and action of the appellant in accepting his appointment as temporary

one amounts to his assent to the temporary appointment and the

appellant throughout till he raised an objection on 29.10.1992 has

slept on his right of being appointed permanently on the post of

District & Sessions Judge. By his conduct at the time of the issuance

of the order by the High Court on 29.2.1992 and thereafter issuance

of the second appointment order on 15.7.1992 with full knowledge of

his own right and the act of the High Court which infringes it, led the

High Court to believe that he has waived or abandoned his right.
Lord Campbel in Cairncross v. Lorrimer, 3 LT 130 held that

"generally speaking if a party having an interest to prevent an act

being done had full notice of its being done, and acquiesce it, so as to

induce a reasonable belief that he consents to it and the position of

the others is altered by their giving credit to his sincerity, he has no

more right to challenge the act to their prejudice than he would have

had if it had been done by his previous license."

27. The aforesaid facts clearly make out an acquiescence of the

appellant of accepting order dated 14.1.1992 being treated as

temporary appointment order on the post of District & Sessions

Judge and he cannot now be permitted to change his position and

claim the permanent appointment from 14.1.1992 to claim seniority

on the post. Besides this, the High Court has rightly held that in the

absence of the challenge to the second appointment order dated

15.7.1992 from the fresh panel dated 21.2.1992, that order will stand,

though later in time, and has to be given effect to as an order of

appointing the appellant on permanent basis under Rule 6 of the

Rules.

28. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However,

there shall be no order as to costs.
...............................J.
(P.P. NAOLEKAR)

New Delhi;

May 9, 2008.