KERALA MAGISTRATES (JUDICIAL) ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 01-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KERALAMAGISTRATES (JUDICIAL) ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
STATE OF KERALAAND ORS. 
MARCH I, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Integration-Scheme for integrating nvo cadres-Executive decision-
Inteiference-When-Held, no scheme of amalgamation can be fool proof-
Some individuals might su,ffer loss which is usual consequence of any integra-
tion p1vcess-Cou11 cannot substitute its wisdom ivith that of Government 
except to prevent arbi!rariness, i1rationality, perversity and malafides-Consti-
tution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
Kera/a Judicial Service Rules, 1991-Rule 4(3)-lntegration of Civil 
and Criminal Judicial Service-Ratio.fordetennination of inter-se-seniority in 
integrated cadre-Validity-Held, all relevant and germane factors taken into 
consideration while determining ratio-Underthefacts, sub-rnle (4) of Rule 3 
cannot be termed to be arbitrary or discriminatory in.spite of loss to some 
individuals-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 14, 234 and 235. 
The State of Kerala prior to 1991 consisted of Civil Judicial Service 
and Criminal Judicial Service in the lower judiciary and their service 
conditions were governed by different Rules. Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 
1991, were made under Articles 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India 
providing for a common service called the Kerala Judicial Service by 
integrating members of the Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial 
Service. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provided that a ratio of 
3:1 should be maintained for drawing up of gradation list for integrated 
cadre between Subordinate Judges belonging to Civil side and Chief Judi-
cial Magistrates belonging to criminal side and similarly, a ratio of 5:2 
between the Munsiff-Magistrates and Senior Grade Judicial Magistrate. 
The Association of Magistrates belonging to criminal side and others filed 
writ petition assailing validity of said integration, particularly validity of 
sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, which was dismissed by the High 
Court, Against the Judgment of High Court, petitioners therein have filed 
the present appeal. 
222 
+-
KERALA MAGISTRATE (JUDICIAL) v. STATE 
223 
Appellants contended that the ratio of' 3:1 and 5:2 and its working 
A 
out is unreasonable and unjust to the Magistrates belonging to criminal 
judiciary; that basis of integration was arbitrary and irrational as regu· 
lar length of service was not taken into account while considering senior-
ity in integrated cadre; that fixation of quota under the Rules was invalid 
as relevant facts like number ofposl~ in entry grade of both wings, promo-
tional avenues in each wing and promotional avenue in the integrated 
cadre were not taken into account in working out integration; and that the 
rules were discriminatory as appellants would practically have no prospect 
of promotion as compared to their counter parts on the civil side, thereby 
also affecting efficiency of service. 
Respondent-High Court of Kerala contended that ratio was found to 
be most reasonable after thoroughly discussing the matter in several meet· 
ings of il' Full Court; that High Court considered all aspects like entry 
point, requirement of experience for entry, opening up of promotional 
avenue to higher cadre, and period taken for promotion, for both wings 
and arrived at final decision; that principle evolved for determination of 
inter-Se-seniority in integrated cadre may \vork out some injustice to some 
members but that cannot by itself he held to be arbitrary or irrational 
unless it is established that it acts with hostile discrimination; and that 
efficiency of service was considered in forming integrated cadre and in 
B 
c 
D 
evolving principle of seniority of incumbents in integrated cadre. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In Service .Jurisprudence, integration is a complicated 
administrative problem, where in doing broad justice to many, some bruise 
to a few cannot he ruled out. It would not he possible or practical to 
measure the respective merits for the purpose of seniority with mathemati-
cal precision by a barometer and some formula doing larg~st good to the 
largest number has to be evolved. The court cannot substitute its wisdom 
for Government's save to see that unreasonable perversity, mala fide ma-
nipulation, indefensible arbitrariness and infirmities do not defile the equa-
tion for integration. No scheme of amalgamation can be foolproof and 

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