B.S. MATHUR & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 15-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 436 
~
' 
A 
S.S. MATHUR & ANR. 
>--
' 
II. 
UNION OF INOIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 477 of 2007) 
B 
OCTOBER 15, 2008 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. 
PANCHAL, JJ] 
·f-· 
Service Law: 
/ ,._
c 
Delhi Higher Judicial service rules, 1970: 
. rr. 7, 8(2), 16 and 17 - Delhi Higher Judicial Service -
\_
Inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees -
HELD: the principle of "continuous length of service" should 
D be applied for determining inter se seniority of two categories 
of officers appointed upto the year 2006 - For determining 
inter se seniority of officers of both the categories appointed 
-+ 
after 2006, Supreme Court in its earlier decisions had directed 
all the High Courts to make necessary amendment in the 
E Rules providing for determining the inter se seniority on the 
basis of 40 point Roster -Necessary amendments relating to 
I 
. inter se seniority for future would be made in the Rules in con-
sonance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in its 
earlier decisions - Till such time, the principle of "continuous 
F 
length of service" would be applied - 0. M. dated 3. 7. 1986 is-
sued by DOPT, Government of India. 
~ 
Regular recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Ser-
vice was _provided for under Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher 
Judicial Service Rules, 1970: (a) by promotion on the ba-
G sis of selectio!J from members of Delhi Judicial Service 
and (b) 113rd of the posts by direct recruitment from the 
. 
Bar. Rule 8(2) laid down for seniority of direct recruits vis-
..i. 
a-vis promotees ill the order of rotation of vacancies be-
tween the direct recruits and the promotees on the basis 
H 
436 
S.S. MATHUR & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
437 
& ORS. 
----< of quotas of vacancies reserved for both the categories A 
by Rule 7, and the first available vacancy to be filled by a 
direct recruit. However, tempor'!ry posts were being filled 
only by the promotee officers in terms of Rules 16 and 17. 
Further, recruitment by direct recruitment was not made 
every year. Therefore, pursuant to directions by the Su-
B 
preme Court in O.P Singla's1 case, the High Court, by 
' 
Notification dated 17 .3.1987, amended the Rules to pro-
----',""• 
vide for filling up of temporary posts/vacancies under Rule 
16 also by direct recruitment as per quota prescribed un-
der Rule 7. In order to restore the balance between the c 
direct recruits and the promotees, the High Court decided 
to fill up 14 vacancies then existing by direct recruitment. 
In Rudra Kumar Sain'2 s case, the Supreme Court held that 
inter se seniority must be determined on the basis of con-
tinuous length of service in the cadre as indicated in O.P 
D 
Singla's case. Consequently, the officers of DHJS ap-
~ pointed/promoted to the Service against vacancies prior 
to the amendment of the Rules, 1987 were given seniority 
on the basis of the principle of length' of service. 
On 14.8.2002, the Delhi High Court circulated a ten-
E 
\• 
tative seniority list of the officers of DHJS inviting objec-
tions, if any, and appointed a Committee of five Judges to 
decide the issue of seniority of the officers of DHJS ap-
pointed after 1991. The Committee after considering the 
J. 
representations of the officers from both sides - directly F 
recruited as also promotees - submitted their reports. The 
majority view of four Judges comprising the Committee 
was that the Rota Quota Rule was workable only if simul-
taneous recruitments were resorted to and since no si-
multaneous recruitments took place, inter se seniority af-
G 
ter a particular officer, namely, 'KCL' should be settled as 
1.· per O.M. dated 3.7.1986 issued by th'e Department of Per-
sonnel and Training, Government of India. The dissent-
ing Judge was of the view that the principle of length of 
service should be applied. The Full Court, by its resolu-
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A tion dated 18.5.2007, accepting the majority'view, decided '( 
to confer seniority on the basis of O.M. dated 32.7.1986. 
t .. 
Aggrieved, the direct recruits filed the instant writ petitions. 
The question for consideration before the Court was 
B 
as to which of the following criteria would be most equi-
table, reasonable and justifiable for determining inter se 
seniority of the officers of DHJS: 
(i) 
Principle of Rota Quota as laid down in Rule 
"r 
8(2) read with Rule 7 of DHJS Rules; 
\ 
c 
(ii) 
Principle as laid down in the 0.M. of DOPT dat

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