G. R. LUTHRA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,DELHI versus LT, GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS .

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 974 · Decided: 03-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

~74 
O. R. LUTHRA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT' JUDGE, DELHl 
v. 
LT, GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS . 
• 
September 3, 1974. 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, J.] 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970--Rule 6(3 )-''Length of service 
,,.endered by them in the cadre to lvhich they belong", meaning-Seniority if de-
Jermined on the basis of confirmation or length of service. 
Rule 6(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, provides that 
the seniority of the candidates appointed at the initial constitution of the service 
shall be in accordance with the "length of service rendered by them in the cadre 
to which they belong" at the time of their initial recruitment to the service. Under 
Rule 6(1) the appointment is to be made substantially from amongst District 
Judges and Additional District Judges, functioning as such in the union territory 
of Delhi on deputation from other States and those recommended by their res-
pective States. 
-
Respondents 2, 3 and 4 were appointed prior to the appellant as temporary 
Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Cadre of District and Additional 
District and Sessions Jud&e in tb,eir respective States. The appellant was con-
fumed against permanent post in his parent State; before respondent 3, while 
xespondents 2 and 4 were not confirmed. 
When the appellant and the respon-
dents were appointed substantively, in May 1971, to the Delhi Higher Judicial 
Service the respondents were given seniority over the appellant since the length 
.of service rendered by the respondents in the cadre of District and Additional 
District to Sessioris Judges to which they belonged at the time of initial recruit-
ment was longer than that of the appe!Jant 
The High Court rejected a writ 
petition by the appellant against the fixation ·of seniority. 
In the appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the expression "the 
length of service rendered by them in the cadres to which they belong'' meant 
the length of service in substantive appointment to permanent posts, and that 
for purpose of seniority what was relevant was the date of confirmation and not 
the date of appointment in an officiating or temporary capacity, 
Dismissing the appeal, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
HEID : that the respondents had been rightly treated as senior to the appel-
F 
tant. 
· (i) The words "in the cadre to which they belong" in rule 6 (3) cover the 
.cases of perm.anent as well as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judges 
at the time of initial recruitment. The Rules were framed for those who were 
'functioning as Additional District and Sessions Judges at Delhi and the Delhi 
Higher Judicial Service was constituted with persons who rendered service as 
Additional District and Sessions Judges in temporary posts or in temporary capa-
G 
-city against permanent posts. 
The ward "cadre" includes both temporary and 
permanent posts. 
To confine cadre to permanent posts would render the rules 
totally unworkable and impracticable, because at the time of initial recruitment 
the persons came on deputation from States mostly in their temporary capacity 
as Additional Dfatrict and Sessions Judges. 
[983 C; A; 984 E-Fl 
(ii) The important yardstick in the determination of seniority is the length 
of service rendered in a cadre. Where confirmation is the decisive factor to de-
termine the :i;eniorty, rules state so. 
Confirmation depends on the accident of 
H 
permanent posts falling vacant. 
To determine seniority according to confirma· 
tion is to wipe out the length of service. The criterion for the determination of 
•eniority under the Delhi rules is the length of service. 
[983 B-C; 984 C-D] 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
, H 
G. R, !.UTHRA v. LT. GOVERNOR (Ray, C.J.) 
97 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 777 of 1973. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
the 21st March, 1972 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, in Civil 
Writ No. 1211 of 1971. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamla Pappu and J. Ramamurthi, for the 
appellant. 
F. S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, R. N. Sach-
they and M. N. Shroff, for respondent no. I. 
S. V. Gupte, L. R. Gupta and M. V. Goswami, 
for responden 
nos. 2 and 3. 
L. R. Gupta and M. V. Goswami, for respondent no. 4. 
ARGUMEI'iTS 
For the Appellant : Under rule 6(3) requirement is length of service and 
not "continuous length". 
So the entire length of service as District or Addl. 
District & Sessions Judge is to be taken even if it is by parts. 
For corr

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