ISHWAR CHAND JAIN versus HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 10-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ISHWAR CHAND JAIN 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 10, 2001 
B [G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963: Rules 10(2) and 12. 
c 
Judicial service-Seniority-Fixation of-Date of joining or date of 
confirmation-Judicial Officer appointed on 2-5-1983 as a direct recruit on 
probation for a period of two years-However, his services were terminated 
after expiry of extended probation-Supreme Court set aside the order of 
termination-His services confirmed w.e.f 2-5-1986-Supreme Court directed 
D his confirmation to be w.e.f 2-5-1985-According(v, date of confirmation of 
Judicial Officers revised and re-fixed-Validity of-Held: It is not the date of 
joining which has to be taken note of but date of confirmation-Hence, 
seniority is to be fixed w.e.f date of confirmation i.e., 2-5-1985 and not date 
of joining i.e., 2-5-1983-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16. 
E 
Judicial Ethics: 
Fanciful litigation-Indulgence of-Judicial Officer spent a lq(,g period 
more in law courts in ventilating his personal grievance rather than redressing 
the grievances of the litigating public-Propriety of-Held: Judiciary is one 
+-
F of the organs of the State and owes constitutional responsibility-There may 
.,._ 
be some grievances about service conditions but this does not authorise a 
Judicial Officer to indulge in fanciful litigation. 
The petitioner joined the service on 2-5-1983 as a direct recruit 
Additional District & Sessions Judge in judicial service on probation for a 
G period of 2 years. The petitioner's services were terminated after the expiry 
of the extended period of probation. This Court set aside the order of 
termination. But the High Court confirmed the petitioner's services w.e.f. 
2-5-1986. However, this Court directed confirmation of the petitioner w.e.f. 
2-5-1985 and the same was duly complied with. Subsequently, the dates of 
H confirmation of District/Additional District and Sessions Judges were revised 
306 
l.C. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 
307 
and re-fixed. 
The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the validity 
of Rules 10(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 
on the ground that the Rules violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of India, 1950. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that his seniority should 
'i< 
be w.e.f. 2-5-1983 i.e., the date of his joining the service and not w.e.f. 2-
5-1985 i.e., the date of his confirmation. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
A 
B 
HELD : 1. It is not the date of joining which ought to be taken note of C 
but the date of co.nfirmation, and in any event since the issue has been dealt 
• _\.-
with by this Court once before, the question of reopening of the same would 
not arise. Hence, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner. 
-
-- ..l 
(315-G; 316-A) 
D 
B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana. AIR (1981 ( SC 561 and L Chandra 
Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur, (19991 8 SCC 287, referred to. 
G.P. Doyal v. ,Chief Secretary, Government ofU.P., 1198414 SCC 329, 
cited. 
2. Significantly, the petitioner's rank and file has been determined by E 
this Court at his own instance and having gained the desired objective, the 
litigations sprit should have died down or be at its lowest ebb at least, but 
the spirit continued unabated and undaunted and resultantly the instant 
proceeding is a total abuse of the process of court. The Petitioner has been 
able to redress his grievances and even after obtaining the fullest benefit, F 
the demand still remains to be insatiable which runs counter to all known 
principles of judicial ethics. (317-B-Cf 
3. Judiciary is one of the three organs of the State and owes 
constitutional responsibility. Responsiveness to the needs of a litigant to 
have the matter disposed of expeditiously cannot be decried in any way and G 
in any event is the need of the day. The petitioner has been in the judicial 
service since 1983 and a long period of seventeen years has been spent more 
in the law courts in ventilating his personal grievance rather than redressing 
the grievances of the litigant public. Judiciary owes a duty to the public at 
large and one need not take the extreme recourse unless placed against a 
wall. There might be some grievances here and there or some dissatisfaction H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] I S.C.R. 
A about ser\'ice conditions but

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