LexDINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 497 DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2018) APRIL 29, 2020 [UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.] Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 – rr.3, 5-8, 15-32, 42, 47, 57; Schedule I, II, VII – Effect of 2010 Rules – Cadre of District Judges in State of Rajasthan – Promotees, Direct Recruits and candidates selected through Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) – Appointments and seniority – Objection to – Report dtd.15.03.19 by five judge Committee of High Court – Held: Judicial officers promoted on ad-hoc basis as Additional District and Sessions Judges to man Fast Track Courts in the State and substantively appointed to the Cadre of District Judge are entitled to seniority from the date when substantive appointment is made and not from the date of initial ad-hoc appointment or promotion – Further, selection process initiated under Notification dated 31.03.2011 is not in continuation of the earlier selection of 2010 – Report dated 15.03.2019 correctly concluded the same – Candidates selected through LCE and Direct Recruitment vide Order dated 15.07.2013 cannot be clubbed with 47 Judicial Officers manning Fast Track Courts who were promoted to the Cadre of District Judge in substantive capacity on 21.04.2010 and cannot be placed in accordance with Cyclic Order provided in Schedule VII – The 47 Judicial Officers were rightly placed en-bloc senior to all the candidates selected pursuant to Notification dtd. 31.03.2011 – Inter se placement of candidates selected through LCE be based on merit and not on seniority in the erstwhile cadre – Seniority list issued in terms of Report dtd.15.03.2019 stands modified only to the said extent – Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 – rr.3, 6-9, 22-24; Schedule I – Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 – Constitution of India – Arts.233, 234, 309 – Service Law. Service Law – Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service – Judicial Officers granted ad-hoc promotions u/1969 Rules to man Fast Track Courts – Service rendered if to be considered for seniority – Held: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 497 497 A B C D E F G H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R. Service rendered by such Judicial Officers as Fast Track Court Judges on ad-hoc basis cannot be taken into account while reckoning seniority after they were granted promotion on substantive basis – Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 Following questions arise for consideration:- (A) Whether the judicial officers promoted on ad-hoc basis as Additional District and Sessions Judges to man the Fast Track Courts in the State and who were substantively appointed to the Cadre of the District Judge, are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial ad-hoc promotion? (B) Whether the selection process initiated in terms of the Notification dated 31.03.2011 can be said to be in continuation of the process initiated under Notification dated 15.04.2010? (C) Whether the substantive promotion granted to the 47 Judicial Officers must be taken to be part of the same selection process pursuant to the Notification dated 31.03.2011 and whether the 47 Judicial Officers could be placed en-bloc senior to the candidates selected in said selection process initiated pursuant to the Notification dated 31.03.2011, without applying the Cyclic Order in terms of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010? (D) Whether the inter se placement of candidates selected to the Cadre of District Judge in the State through Limited Competitive Examination, in the seniority list must be based on their merit in said examination or should it be based on their initial seniority in the erstwhile cadre? (E) Whether the Report dated 15.03.2019 and the consequential Final Seniority List, otherwise calls for any modification or correction? [Para 38][554-E-H; 555-A-B] 1.2 The decisions in Debabrata Dash, and V. Venkata Prasad were in the context where serving Judicial Officers were granted ad-hoc promotions as Fast Track Court Judges, while in C. Yamin the members of the Bar were appointed as Fast Track Court Judges and these decisions thus completely conclude the issue. As has been held in said decisions, the reckonable date has to be A B C D E F G H 499 the date when substantive appointment is made and not from the date of the initial ad-hoc appointment or promotion. Question (A) is, therefore, answered in the negative. [Para 39] Debabr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.