LexBALASAHEB VISHNU CHAVAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
> ~ . -i , . ..,. 719 A BAlASAHEB VISHNU CHAVAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. B February 22, 1984 [0. Ctt!NNAPPA REDDY, E.S. V ENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ..]. C Bombay Judicial Sen·icc .Recmit111e11t Rules, 1956-Rufe 5(2)-l11terpretatio1I of. Rule 5(2) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules; 1956 provided fo.r two methods of appointment to the posts of District .Judges (i) by promotion of' members of the Junior Branch who had .served as Assistant Judges and (ii) by direct recuitment from members of the B~r. The proviso to Rule 5(2) (i) (b) provided tnat when a member of the Bar was recuited as a D istrict Judge, a~d he was i.ess th ·~n the iv;e prescr1bJJ, h::: should first be appointed to work as Assistant Judge for such penocl as might be decided by the G()vernment before h~ w?s appointed as a District Judge. The appellants who were members of the Junior Branch of the Judicial Service of the Strite of Maharah_lra were appointed as Assistant Judges in 1971, in 1974 respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were members of the Bar, were aP,pointed P.S A ~sistan t Judges a.nd theit names were shown below the appallants in the existing list of A~~istant Judges. Tn February 1977 respondents, Nos. 2 to 5 were appointed to officiate as Di3tric.t Judges. The appellants filed petitions before the High Court claiming that they should be treated as having been promoted as District Judges aloof with respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The High Court dismissed 'the petitions. Hence these appeals. Di ~m issing the' appeals, D E -F G HELD : Under ruk S C)(i)(b) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 even though a member of t_he Bar is recruited as a D istrict Judge he may H l e asked to s·~rve as a n Assistant Judge for a specified period. Whel) he so func- A 8 c D E F 720 SUPREME COL'RT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c. tions he cannot be called as a member of the cadre of Assistant Judges_ subject to the rule of seniorit> applicable to the regular members of that cadre who were appointed by promotion from the Junior Branch. He: would only be a person who is rccrnited as a District JUbge but posted as an Assi~tant Judge to gain the requisite Judicidl exp.;rience of that post before being entrusted with the duties of a District Judge. Tndusion of the name of such a person in the list of Assistant Judges does not confer any right on such regular Assistant Judges appointed by pron1otion from !.he Junior Branch who are placed above him in the list to claim seniority over him. [723 G-H, 724 A-B] - In the instant c1sc since as betwe~n · the appellants on the one hand and re~:.~ Nmictits Nos. 2 to 5 on the other then: b~ing no comparison, it cannot be said that ( there is any violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. lt appears that all this confusion has arisen on ;1u:ount of the practice of including the names of the direct recruits from the B.u to the cadre of District Judges while they are serving as Assistant Judges under the proviso to Rufo 5(2)(iJ(b) of the Rules in the :same list . alongwith Assistant Jmlgcs promoted from the Junior Branch. If a separate list of such p~r;;ons was th~r·:, th:re would not have been any room for such confusion. !724 E-Fj Clv1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5999 & 6000 of 1983 Ap.i;.eals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 25th JL nc, 1978 of the Maharashtra High Court in Mis_c. Appln. \ No. 763 oJ 1981 with Special Civil Application No, 1323 c'f J 978.. - "'· U. R. La/it. V. N. Ganpu/e and Mrs. V. D. Khan11a for the Appellants. . A.V. Sawa11t, .11!.N. Shroff: S.M. Shalt, P. Sankara Naraymw for the Respondents. S.B. Bhasme, Gopa!, .iJ. Sat/zc fl r Respondent NL1. 5. V.B. Saliarya and R.N. Poddar for Re~pondent (U 0.1.). 'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant in Civil App?<. I No. 5995 of 1983 is Shri B.V. Chavan and the appellant 111 Civil Appeal Nlt .,. f- · p:"' .\ , l ·• ·• • n.v. CHA VAN v. MAHARASHTRA (Venkataramiah, J.) 721 6000 of 1983 is Shri A.A. Halbe. Ti1e ,appellants in these two appeals are inambers of the Judicial Service of the State of M1hara- shtra. They were originally ''PiJO;nted as Civil Judges (fonior Divi- sion) and Judicial M1gistrates First Class in the Junior Branch of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service. Both of them in course of time were promoted in the year 1971 as Assistant Judges in the Se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.