MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1125 · Decided: 20-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHARASHTRA STATE JUDICIAL SERVICE 
ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Service Law 
A 
B 
Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment (Second Amendment) Rules, 1992- C 
Rule 5(2)(ii) and 5(2)(c)-District Judges-lnter-se Seniority-Reckoning of-
District Judges appointed by nomination from the Bar and those promoted 
from the rank of Additional District Judges-Direct Recruits to work as 
Additional District Judges on probation for two years-High Court holding 
that those who were appointed by nomination would reckon their seniority D 
from the date of appointment and the promotee to reckon their seniority from 
the date of their promotjrm-Held, not justified---Seniority of direct recruit 
could be reckoned from ~he date of his appointment to work as a District 
• 
Judge after completing the probation period and not from the initial 
appointment-Order of High Court struck down-Alteration of sub-clauses of 
s.5(2)-Appropriate amendment- -Directions issued 
E 
Words and Phrases 
Expression "to work as"-Meaning of in context of Rule 5(2)(iii)(a) and 
Rule 5(2)(c) of Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment (Second Amendment) 
Rules, 1992. 
F 
The issue involved in the present writ petition is regarding the inter-se-
seniority of District Judges appointed by nomination from the Bar and those 
who were promoted from the rank of Additional District Judge. 
Under Rule 5(2)(iii)(a) of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment G 
(Second Amendment), Rules, 1992 direct recruit District Judges were to work 
as Additional District Judges on probation for a period of two years and only 
on completion of the said period of probation they were appointed as District 
Judges. High Court on administrative side held that those who were appointed 
by nomination would reckon their seniority in the cadre from the date of their H 
1125 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002) I S.C.R. 
A appointment and the promotee District Judges would reckon their seniority 
from the date of their promotion. Hence the present writ petition by 
promotees. 
On behalf of promotee-petitioners it W2S contended that on a plain literal 
meaning being given to the language used in Rule 5(2)(c), the seniority in case 
B of o direct recruit has to be reckoned from the date he was appointed to work 
as District Judge and not from the date he was appointed to work as an 
Additional District Judge. 
Allowing the writ petition, the Court 
C 
HELD : 1.1. The seniority of a promotee District Judge would reckon 
from the date of his promotion, from which date he is appointed to work as 
District Judge a11d in case of a direct recruit, the same would be the date from 
which he is appointed to work as a District Judge, after completion of the 
period of probation of two years and not from the initial appointment to work 
D as Additional District Judge. (1135-G( 
1.2. There is 110 manner of doubt that the seniority of the direct recruit 
District Judges in the cadre would reckon only from the date they are 
appointed to work as District Judge. The expression •'to work as" both in 
ruler 5(2)(iii)(a) imd Rule 5(2)(c) must curry the same connotation. If under 
E Rule 5(2)(~ii)(a), direct rec,ruit cannot be appointed as a District Judge unless 
he is first appointed to work as Additional District Judge for a period of two 
years, it is difficult to comprehend that while interpreting the same expression 
"to work as District Judge" in rule 5(2)(c) can be given a meaning that it 
would reckon from the date of appointment, as has been done by the High 
Court in its administrative decision. In other words, a conjoint reading of the 
F provisions, providing for appointment of District Judge from amongst the 
members of the Bar by nomination of the recommendation of the High Court 
as well as the embargo on such appointment, as provided in Rule S(2)(iii)(a) 
makes it explicitly clear that a person selected for being appointed as District 
Judge, is allowed to work initially as an Additional District Judge on probation 
G for a period of two years and that period cannot be counted as service in the 
cadre of District Judge for seniority. His services in the cadre of District Judge 
for seniority would start reckoning on completion of his probation for a period 
of two years or any further period, as extended by the High Court and he is 
allowed to work as District Judge. (1135-A-D( 
H 
2. The stand taken by the 

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