B. L. GOEL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 2 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 17-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
82 
B. L. GOEL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
' 
October 17, 1978 
[Y. V. CllANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKAR!.~, N. L. UNTWAL!A, 
0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953-Rules 20 and 23-Appelfant a 
pron1otee to post of District Judge-Govern1nent created posts of District Judges 
for absorption of promotees-Three direct recruits confirmed as Dl5trict Judges 
against these vacancie~-Appellani not confirn1ed-iVotifications declaring confir-
1nations-J/ alidity of. 
Under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 appointments to the 
posts of Civil and Sessions Judges were made by promotion from the rnen1bers 
of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and by direct recruitment. Rule ZU 
of the Rules dealing with seniority provided that :>eniority in each of the two--
classes of posts shall be determined by the date of confirmation in that c~ass 
of post. 
Rule 23 provided that a probaitioner shall be confirmed in his .:ippu1nt-
D 
ment at the end of his period of probation if the Governor was satisfied that 
he was fit for confirmation. 
F 
G 
IH 
The appellant who was appointed as a Civil Judge in 1955, was promoted' 
as officiating Civil and Sessions Judge in July. 1960. 
Respondents 3 to 5 \\ho 
were direct recruits to the post of Civil a,nd Sessions Judges joined service in 
May/June, 1966. 
For the purpose of absorbing the promoted officers the Government con-
verted 22 temporary po5ts into permanent posts of Civil and Sessions Judges with 
effect from April 1, 1966. Three out of those posts were given to the thn:e 
respondents, who were direct recruits, and they were confirmed in the posts 
with effect from May/June, 1968. In twelve other posts, twelve promotecs 
Vv'cre confirmed with effect from April l, 1966. but the appellant was not so. 
confirmed though he had been continuously officiating as a Civil and Sc~sions 
Judge since July, 1960. He was confirmed as Civil and Sessions Judge with 
e1Iect from January 1, 1969. 
He was eventually confirmed in the post ot 
District and Sessions Judge with effect from February I, 1973. 
The three respondents were later appointed as District and Sessions Judges. 
By a Notification dated March 19, 1975, they were confirmed in those po3ts 
with effect from July/August, 1972. The Notification dated July 22, 1977 issued' 
by the High Court. showed the !three respondents at serial Nos. 30, 31 and 
32 of the list and the appellant <lit No. 38 and the dates of confirmation were 
shown as August 25. 1972 in respect of three respondents and lvfarch 18. 1973 
rn respect of the appellant. 
The High Court allowed the appellant's writ petition and quashed the Notifi-
cations dated March 19. 1975 and July 22, l9i ! in.c;ofa.r as they related t<> 
the dates of confirmation of the appellant and the respondents. The High Court 
on the administrative side was directed to redetermine the dates Of their confir-
mation as District and Sessions Judges and their inter-se seniority i11 acccrd@lce 
with Rule 20. 
• 
• ,. 
., , 
B. L, GOEL V. u. P. (Sarkaria, /.) 
83 
In appeal, it was, inter alia, contended on hehalf of the appellant that the 
A 
22 permanent posts having been created with effect from 1-4-1966 for permanent 
ab;orption of promotees who had been officia<ting prior to that date for a period 
of more than three years, (Respondents 3 to 5 who were not even in service 
on that date, could not be absorbed against any of those vacancies, and the 
ap Jellant who had put in nearly six years of service in th~ Cadre on_ the date 
when the three respondents were appointed, could not be denied confirmation 
wi1h effect from April I, 1966; that apart from greater length of service, the 
B 
appellant has an excellant, unblemished record of s~rvke; and in the circwn· 
stances, the confirmation of the appellant with effect from a date later than 
thc.se assigned to Respondents 3, 4 and 5 is unfair, arbitrary and discrin1inatory. 
Allov.ling the appeal, 
l-IELD : The main criteria lo be considered for confirmation of officers 
C 
offci<:1ting in the Higher Judicial Service of the Stati.:: are : 
(i) Availability of a substantive vacancy/post. 
(ii) Suitability fo; the post. [92CJ 
lle ·e, a substantive post of Civil and Sessions Judge was available to the appel-
lan: from April 1, 1966, when Respondents 3, 4 and 5 had not even been 
aprointed to the service in any capacity. 
By April 1, 1966, the appellant had 
put in service as officiating <;ivil and

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