HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 28-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD –
THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.3356 of 2018)
MARCH 28, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 – Determination of
seniority of promotees and direct recruits – Earlier, in absence of
determination of vacancies for the period from 2002 till 2007, neither
promotees were appointed in spite of availability of vacancies and
eligibility nor direct recruitments were made – After the amendment
of the Rules in 2007, recruitment process was initiated, and
vacancies were worked out and advertisements were issued – Both
promotees and direct recruits were appointed – After the
appointments, the dispute of seniority cropped up – The direct
recruits claimed that they were entitled to be given seniority as per
Rota system laid down under the Rules and they had been wrongly
placed junior to the promotees – The promotees claimed that their
seniority should commence from the date of accrual of vacancy,
date of their eligibility, without their passing of the suitablity test
which was retrospectively prescribed for the first time after the
amendment of the 2007 Rules – Held: The High Court was correct
in taking the view that suitability test was required in terms of
judgment rendered in All India Judges Association case and under
the amended Rules applicable retrospectively – Promotees could
not be given promotion without suitability test nor could they claim
seniority without the same – They were rightly given seniority from
their appointments – Insofar as Quota-Rota rule is concerned, it is
a mandatory requirement of the Rules – The said requirement has
however to be seen in the peculiar fact situation – On facts, the
issue of determination of vacancies was embroiled in continuous
litigation – The Quota-Rota rule could not be applied in the absence
of determination of vacancies – The rule provided for seniority of
the promotees  to be fixed from the date of availability of vacancy
but such seniority could also not be given in the present fact situation
– If Rota rule is applied, it will work serious prejudice to the
1090
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 1090
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
promotes – Thus, the Rules will have to be given pragmatic
interpretation – If it becomes impractical to act upon rule fixing
quota from two sources,  it is no use insisting that the authority must
give effect to such a rule – Every effort has to be made to respect a
rule but if it is not feasible to enforce it, the rule has to be given a
practical interpretation –  Thus, interference by the High Court
with the seniority given to the promotees above the direct recruits
without following the rotation principle cannot be sustained.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1.  The first issue raised is whether the promotees
recruited in the year 2008/2009 are entitled to seniority prior to
their selection on the ground that no suitability test was required
prior to 9th January, 2007 and retrospective effect to such
requirement was illegal.  The view taken by the High Court is
correct that suitability test was required in terms of judgment of
this Court in All India Judges’  case and under the amended Rules
applicable retrospectively. Thus, the promotees could not be
given promotion without suitability test nor could they claim
seniority without the same.  They have been rightly given seniority
from their appointments.  [Para 29]  [1111-B-D]
2.  With regard to the Quota-Rota rule, there is no doubt
that this is a mandatory requirement of the Rules.  The said
requirement has however to be seen in the peculiar fact situation.
The issue of determination of vacancies was embroiled in
continuous litigation.  The Quota-Rota rule could not be applied
in the absence of determination of vacancies.  The suitability test
though validly laid down could not be held till 2008.  No promotion
could be given in absence of suitability test.  The rule provided
for seniority of the promotees to be fixed from the date of
availability of vacancy but such seniority could also not be given
in the present fact situation. If rota rule is applied, it will work
serious prejudice to the promotees. Thus, the Rules will have to
be given pragmatic interpretation. If it becomes impractical to
act upon rule fixing quota from two sources,  it is no use insisting
that the authority must give effect to such a rule.  

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