DINESH KUMAR GUPTA & Ors. v. APRIL 29

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS 505 All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others (1993) 4 SCC 288 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749; All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and others (2002) 4 SCC 274; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others (2002) 5 SCC 1 : [2002] 3 SCR 810; Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (2006) 9 SCC 507 : [2006] 3 SCR 689; Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others (2008) 17 SCC 703; All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India and others (2010) 15 SCC 170; Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers’ Association v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2009) 14 SCC 656: [2009] 10 SCR 814; High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan v. Veena Verma and another (2009) 14 SCC 734 : [2009] 10 SCR 795; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Others (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Union of India and Others v. N. R. Parmar and Others (2012) 13 SCC 340 : [2012] 13 SCR 555; Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers’ Assn. v. State of Maharashtra (1990) 2 SCC 715 : [1990] 2 SCR 900; Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 25; Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court v. State of Punjab and others (2019) 12 SCC 496 : [2018] 13 SCR 91; K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. v. Ningam Siro and Others (2019) SCC Online SC 1494 : [2019] 16 SCR 651 – referred to. Case law Reference [2002] 2 SCR 712 relied on [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 206 referred to [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 749 referred to (2002) 4 SCC 274 [2002] 3 SCR 810 [2006] 3 SCR 689 (2008) 17 SCC 703 referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 1 Para 2.1 Para 2.1 Para 2.1 Para 2.3 Para 2.4 Para 2.5 A B C D E F G H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R. A (2010) 5 SCC 170 referred to Para 2.6 [2009] 10 SCR 814 [2009] 10 SCR 795 [2012] 5 SCR 305 B [2013] 2 SCR 331 [2016] 3 SCR 834 [2019] 10 SCR 595 [2012] 13 SCR 555 [1990] 2 SCR 900 (2008) 8 SCC 25 [2011] 6 SCR 443 [2018] 13 SCR 91 [2019] 16 SCR 651 referred to referred to referred to relied on relied on relied on referred to referred to referred to relied on referred to referred to Para 10 Para 11 Para 21 Para 31 Para 31 Para 31 Para 31 Para 39 Para 39 Para 41 Para 41.1 Para 41.2 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petiton (Civil) No. 936 of 2018. Under Article 32 of the Consitution of India With W.P. (C) No. 967/2018, 1471/2018, 498/2019, 464/2019, 899/2019, 897/2019, 895/2019, 1008/2019 and Diary No. 13252/2019. Vijay Hansaria, Sanjay R. Hegde, V.K. Shukla, P.S. Patwalia, Nidhesh Gupta, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Dr. Manish Singhvi, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs., Avnish Pandey, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Gopal Jha, Abhinav Mukerji, Siddharth Garg, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Purnima Krishna, Samarth Khanna, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari, Mohd. Shahrukh Ali, For Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, John Mathew, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms.Pallavi Singh, Ms. Jasneet Kaur, Rishi Matoliya, H.D. Thanvi, Praveen Gaur, Ms.Priyanshi Aggarwal, Ms. Aadya Mishra, D.K. Devesh, Satyendra Kumar, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Harsha Vinoy, Arpit Parkash, Milind Kumar, Annam D. N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Rahul Sharma, Ms. Sangeetha M.R., Ms. Ananya Khandelwal, Ms. Avni Sharma, Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, C D E F G H DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS 507 S.S. Dahiya, R. C. Kaushik, Ms. Sangeeta Gaur, K. Parameshwar, M.V. Mukunda, Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Devashish Maharishi, Adarsh Upadhyay, Dr. Harsh V. Surana, Rohit K. Singh, Karthik S.D., Sachin Sharma, Sunil Samdaria, Sanchit Garga, P.D. Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

#1. These Writ Petitions broadly fall in following three categories:- A] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018 filed by four petitioners, prays for appropriate directions that after the promulgation of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (“2010 Rules”, for short), all appointments ought to be in conformity with 2010 Rules and allocation of seniority must be in accordance with the Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII to 2010 Rules. In terms of 2010 Rules, posts in the cadre of District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service in State of Rajasthan were required to be filled up in accordance with quota of 50% for Promotees, 25% for Direct Recruits and 25% by way of Limited Competitive Examination (“LCE”, for short) in keeping with law laid down by this Court in All India Judges Association vs. Union of India and Others1. This Writ Petition filed by candidates who were successful in LCE prays that they be allocated seniority in terms of the Cyclic Order in Schedule VII. In this group fall Writ Petition (Civil) No.498 of 2019*and Writ Petition Diary No.13252 of 2019 which pray that the inter se seniority between candidates who were successful in LCE must be determined on the basis of their merit in LCE and not by their erstwhile seniority. B] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 967 of 2018 has been filed by 37 Direct Recruits challenging the Provisional Seniority List dated 16.08.2017 with regard to the cadre of District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service in the State, on the ground that the appointments made after 2010 Rules had come into effect, ought to be in accordance with the Cyclic Order; and the inter se seniority and placement of Direct Recruits and Promotees, promoted after 2010 1(2002) 4 SCC 247 A B C D E F G H 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R. A B C D E F G Rules had come into effect must be in accordance with 2010 Rules. C] Writ Petition (Civil) No.1471 of 2018 has been filed by Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association (“the Association”, for short) seeking benefit of ad-hoc/officiating service put in by Promotees who were promoted on ad-hoc basis as Fast Track Court Judges and also prays for re-determination of vacancies of Direct Recruits submitting that the vacancies earmarked for Direct Recruits were in excess of their quota. Writ Petition (C) Nos.464 of 2019, 895 of 2019, 897 of 2019, 899 of 2019 and 1008 of 2018 are filed by Judicial Officers seeking similar benefit in respect of ad-hoc/officiating service as Fast Track Court Judges in the State and pray that such candidates be placed above the Direct Recruits in the cadre of District Judges in the State.

#2. Since the issues involved in all these matters pertain to appointments to and allocation of seniority in respect of, the cadre of District Judges in the State of Rajasthan and regarding effect of 2010 Rules, the petitions were heard together. Before we deal with the factual aspects, it would be necessary to consider certain decisions of this Court touching upon the establishment of Fast Track Courts as well as the concept of promotion through LCE and the respective quotas for candidates coming from three different streams in the Higher Judicial Service in various States.

2.1. In All India Judges’ Associationv. Union of India and others2, the issues with regard to the working conditions of the members of the subordinate judiciary throughout the country came up for consideration. Number of directions were issued by this Court. However, review petitions were filed by Union of India seeking certain modifications/clarifications. These review petitions were disposed of by this Court while issuing further directions in All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others3. In pursuance of said directions, First National Judicial Pay Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty (former Judge of this Court) was constituted on 21.03.1996. The terms of reference were thereafter modified on 16.12.1997 and the Commission was also empowered to consider and grant interim relief. By Report dated 31.01.1998 some