DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 01-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S.N. PHUKAN AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Service Law 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: 
Rule 16-Temporary posts filled up by promotion--Amendment of Rules 
in 1987 provided filling up temporary posts by promotion and direct 
recruitment-Vacancies of temporary posts arising prior to amendment r>f 
Rules-Held, filling up of temporary posts by direct recruitment is valid as 
the rules were amended pursuant to the Courts direction. 
Rules 7, 16 and 17 of the amended Rules-Held, not violative of 
Articles 14, 16 and 233 of the Constitution. 
Delhi lligher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 provided for filling up of 
temporary posts by promotion from Delhi Judicial Service. The Rules were 
E amended by a notification issued in March 1987. Amended Rules provided 
for filling up of temporary posts by promotion and by direct recruitment from 
the Bar. Pursuant to the amendment, an advertisement was issued in April 
1987 inviting applications from practising advocates for filling up of 10 
temporary posts of Additional District Judges in Delhi Higher Judicial 
F Service: Writ Petition was filed before this Court by Petitioner-Association 
of promottee officers claiming that the vacancies available prior to 1987 will 
have to be filled up under pre-amended rules and then:f ore the advertisement 
that was issued for filling up 10 posts by direct recruitment as per the 
amended rule~ must be struck down. Another writ petjtion was fded before 
this Court by a promotee officer assailing the validity of Rules 7, 8, 16 and 
G 17 of the amended rules. 
Petitioner-Association contended -that the temporary 1>0sts which were 
created prior to the amended rules could be filled up only in accordance with 
the pre-amended rules; that the ·posts co11ld be filled up by promotion from 
the members of the Delhi Judicial Service; that the rights of its members 
fl 
314 
• 
. ... 
-
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSON. v. DELHI HIGH COURT 
315 
cannot be taken away by inaction on the part of the concerned authority in A 
not filling up the same; that the advertis11ment issued to fill up 10 posts by 
way of direct recruitment is contrary to law and should be struck down; and 
that even on a construction of Rule 7(b) of the amended rules, only 1/3rd of 
the 14 posts, which were created, could be filled up by direct recruitment. 
The promotee officer contended that· Rules 7, 16 and 17 of the amended B 
rules violate Article 233 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution; that with the 
amendment in Rule 7 of the Rules, there has been a decline in the standard 
of the appointees in the lowest level, which in turn affects the efficiency and 
intelligence of the officers in the cadre and this in tum is violative of Article 
233 of the Constitution; and the filling up of vacancies under the amended C 
rules results in the denial of equal opportunity, which is violative of Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Respondent-High Court contended that the advertisement calling for 
applications from members of the Bar for making direct recruitment was 
pursuant to the earlier order of this C~~rt dated 18.12.1996 passed on a D 
Writ Petition filed by the promotees; that on a proper construction of Rule 
7(b), it is fully justified in issuing an advertisement for filling up of 10 posts 
by direct recruitment; and that the amended Rules, which were brought about 
pursuant to the order of this Court, do not contravene Article 16 or Article 
233 of the Constitution. 
Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Merely because temporary posts were created under Rule 
16 of the I!elhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, it was not obligatory 
E 
for the appointing authority to fill up those posts immediately. The earlier 
order/direction by this Court dated 18.12.1986 indicated that the High Court F 
should start the process of selection by direct recruitment in accordance 
with the draft rules, which the court had seen at that point of time. This 
Court, on being aware of the fact that temporary posts have been created and 
a grievance has been made by the members of the Delhi Judicial Service that 
those posts were required to be filled up only by way of promotion from them G 
in accordance with the rules as it stood then, get a direction that the posts 
should be filled up both by promotion and by direct recruitment in accordance 
with the dra

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