ASHOK PAL SINGH AND ORS. versus U.P. JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 13-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 25 
ASHOK PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
V. 
U.P. JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 2005) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Judicial Service: 
A 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (Un-
C 
amended and amended) - Rules 6, 8 and 22 - Higher 
Judicial Service - Recruitment, appointment and promotion 
- Direct recruitment quota and promote quota - Dispute over 
inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees - Four 
rounds of litigation - Earlier decisions of Supreme Court and D 
the Service Rules harmonized - Held: Direct recruits to be 
given quota in the temporary posts also - Quota of direct 
recruits is '15%' and not 'upto 15%' - Though the quota of 
direct recruits is fixed, there is flexibility in fixing the vacancies 
to be filled by direct recruitment and vacancies to be filled by E 
promotion - High Court can make adjustments in fixing the 
number of officers to be appointed by promotion and direct 
recruitment as shown in Rule 8(2) and the provisos thereto 
ensuring that the number of direct recruits does not exceed 
15% of the total strength of the service - Proviso to Rule 8(2) 
F 
to be read in the context of the quashing of Sub-Rules (3) and 
(4) of Rule 22 -Total vacancies to be filled up at a recruitment 
by applying sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 and its provisos -
There is no question of unfilled vacancies being carried 
forward for the purpose of fixing the number of officers to be 
taken at the next recruitment. 
G 
The recruitment and appointment to the U.P. Higher 
Judicial Service were governed by the U.P. Higher 
Judicial Services Rules, 1975. In terms of the Rules, the 
25 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A vacancies were filled by i) direct recruitment from the Bar; 
and ii) by promotion from amongst a) Uttar Pradesh 
Nyayik Sewa and b) Uttar Pradesh Judicial Officers 
Service (Judicial Magistrates). 
8 
The issue of inter-se seniority between promotees 
and direct recruits in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial 
Services was considered by the Supreme Court in two 
earlier decisions viz. P.K. Dixit's case* and O.P. Garg's 
case**. The issue again can:ie up in Srikant Tripathi's 
C case***, wherein the Supreme Court issued a number of 
directions. 
The UP Higher Judicial Service Association filed a 
writ petition seeking (i) a direction to the State and the 
High Court not to make any appointment by direct 
D recruitment in the UP Higher Judicial Service until the 
posts available for promotion of members of the UP 
Nyayik Sewa with effect from 1988 recruitment are 
calculated and filled up in accordance with the Rules as 
directed by the Supreme Court in Srikant Tripathi; (ii) a 
E direction to the State and the High Court to appoint to the 
UP Higher Judicial Service, the members of the said 
Association against the 222 existing vacancies in the 
quota of promotees; and (iii) quashing the decision of the 
Full Court of the High Court accepting the recommend-
F 
ations of the three-member Sub-Committee. 
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ 
petition and directed a fresh exercise to be carried out in 
the light of Srikant Tripathi to determine the vacancies 
and their distribution between the three sources of 
G recruitment as per their quota under the Rules, for the 
recruitment years 1988 to 1998 in accordance with the 
following guidelines: (1)the number of the officers of 
Nyayik Sewa and Judicial Service who were already 
promoted and appointed against temporary posts under 
H 
ASHOK PAL SINGH AND ORS. v. U.P. JUDICIAL 
27 
SERVICES ASSOCIATION 
Rule 22(3) or 22(4) of the Rules and whose appointments A 
have been protected in O.P. Garg would be taken into 
consideration and the number of vacancies equal to the 
number of such officers shall be excluded from 
computation; (2) while applying the ratio of judgment in 
O.P. Garg and distributing temporary as well as B 
permanent vacancies, allocation of 15% vacancies of the 
quota of direct recruits under Rule 6 of the Rules, has 
further to be subject to ceiling of 15% of the permanent 
strength of service, till the amendment in the rules came 
into effect in 1996; (3) while making an exercise to find c 
out (in accordance with direction no.2) as to whether the 
direct recruits taken into service are in excess of the 
quota or not, simultaneous exercise has to be done for 
compliance of direction no.3 in Srikant Tripathi (

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.