LexG. R. LUTHRA versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,,
,
•
313
G. R. LUTHRA
v.
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELID & ORS.
August 22, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAzAL ALI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
Delhi Higher Judlcial Service Rules, 1910-Petitioner throughout senior to
respondent-Both were allotted to difjerent States on division of State-Respon~
dent got proforn1a promotion in State Cadre-Petitioner given the benefit of
"next below rltle" and pron1oted later in his State Cadre-Respondent if could
clai1n seniority 'over petitioner.
In the competitiVe examination for recruitment to Punjab
State Judicial
Service, conducted in 1950 by the undivided State of Punjab, the petitioner and
respondent no. 3 were placed at s~ nos., 4 and 13 in the merit list. On August 7,
1950 the petitioner was appciinted as a Sub-Judge against a permanent
post
while the respondent \Vas appointed as Sub-JuQge against a temporary post on
November 23. 1950.
Till the formation of the State of Delhi, judicial officers of Punjab were
posted as judicial officers in Delhi. Both the petitioner and the respondent were
posted as ~uh-Judges in Delhi. Consequent upon the division of the State of
Punjab into Punjab and Haryana the petitioner was allotted to Haryana while
the respondent was retained in Punjab. But even thereafter they continued as
Senior Sub-Judges in Delhi. The Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High
Court +and the Chief Justice of the newly formed Delhi High Court decided
that in the judicial service to be constituted for Delhi the petitioner would rank
senior to the respondent (the petitioner being placed at the fourth place and
the respondent at sixth place in the list of seniority). In May, 1967 the peti-
tioner was appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi; the respondent was
appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi in February, 1968. In the mean--
time the respondent was given a proforma promotion in the State of Punjab
with effect from June 24, 1967 and giving the benefit of "next below rule" the
petitioner was promoted as Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect
from July 28, 1967. The petitioner was confirmed as District and Sessions
Judge ih bis parent cadre on October 2, 1970, while the respondent was appoint~
ed as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Delhi on June 5, 1968 and conti-
nued in that post till May, 1971.
When the Delhi Higher Judicial Service was formed in 1970 the petitioner
was placed at s. no. 7 and the respondent at s. no. 8 in the list of judicial
officers.
• The respondent's representation claiming seniority over the petitioner was
accepted by the Delhi High Court on the ground that in view of Rule 6 (3) of
the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970 as interpreted by this Court in
G. R. Lwhra v. Lt. Governor, Delhi {AIR 1974 SC 1908) the respondent was
senior to the petitioner.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner impugned the
order of the. Lt. Governor passed on the recommendation of the High Court
treating him to be junior to respondent no. 3.
B
'F
G .
If
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] l S.C.R.
A
Allowing the petition,
D
HELD : 1. The petitioner was senior to the respondent and was rightly
placed above the respondent in the initial constitution of the Delhi Higher Judi-
cial Sen·ice in May 1971 and the order of the Lt. Governor was,
therefore,
erroneous.
[322 D·E]
2. Rule 6(3) of the Rules provides that the soniority of candidates appoint-
ed at the initial constitution shall be in· accordance with the length of service
rendered by then1 in the ..:adres to which they belonged at the time of their
initial recruitment to the sCrvice provided that the inter- se seniority as already
fixed in such cadres shall not be altered. The petitioner was throughout rn:ated
as senior to the respondent and even in the initial recruitment to the
Delhi
Higher Judicial Service he was shown as senior to the respondent
Since the
inter sa seniority had been fixed initially the petitioner was senior to the respon~
dent and this position cannot be altered. [320 B-C]
3. Although the respondent was promoted to a higher post before the peti-
tioner was promoted in the respective parent State cadres, since the appointment
of the petitioner was made subject to the next below rule, his seniority over the
respondent was fully protected. If the respondent was to be given seniotity
over the petltioner the question of giving benefit of the next below rule to the
petitioner would not have ariExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.