MANOJ PARIHAR & ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 27-06-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT, J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
611
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 611
611
MANOJ PARIHAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11039 of 2022)
JUNE 27, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Service law: Judicial service – Seniority – Fixation of –
Appointment of Munsiffs by way of direct recruitment on the
recommendations of the State Public Service Commission in the State
of Jammu & Kashmir (Now Union Territory) – Fixation/determination
of inter-se seniority, on the basis of the roster points or in terms of
the order of their inter-se merit at the time of their selection – Held:
In the case of direct recruitment, the preparation of inter se merit list
of the selected candidates is inevitable, even in the absence of an
explicit provision in the rule or policy, the recruitment authority
cannot place the candidates inter se in the select list under the rule
of thumb or by adopting the methodology which is inconsistent with
the Arts. 14 and 16 – Inter-se merit list of the selected candidates
can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written
test, objective test, viva-voce and/or other prescribed parameters –
Even in a case of promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, seniority
by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection
post, it will be one of the factors only – Roster system is only for the
purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in
the recruitment process – It has nothing to do with the inter-se seniority
among those recruited – High Court rightly held that the seniority
should be fixed in accordance with the merit determined by the Public
Service Commission and not in accordance with the roster points,
thus, order by the High Court not interfered with – Jammu and
Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 – r. 5 – Jammu and Kashmir Civil
Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 – r. 42 – Jammu &
Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005 – Jammu and Kashmir Reservation
Act 2004 – Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 –
Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir – Art 111 – Constitution of India
– Arts. 235, 14 and 16.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
612
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
Retrospective operation: Judgment, when retrospective in
operation – Held: Law declared by the court will have retrospective
effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically – Judgment/order.
Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana (2003) 5 SCC 604
: [2003] 2 SCR 757; P. V. George v. State of Kerala
(2007) 3 SCC 557 : [2007] 1 SCR 1198 – relied on.
R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 :
[1995] 2 SCR 35; G. P. Doval v. Govt. of U.P. (1984) 4
SCC 329 : [1985] 1 SCR 70; Kuldip Chand v. Union
of India (1995) 5 SCC 680 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 45;
Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 : [1999]
2 Suppl. SCR 521 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1995] 2 SCR 35
referred to
Para 18
[1985] 1 SCR 70
referred to
Para 20
[1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 45
referred to
Para 21
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 521
referred to
Para 23
[2007] 1 SCR 1198
relied on
Para 26, 27
[2003] 2 SCR 757
relied on
Para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 11039 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2022 of the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in SWP No. 1350 of 2011.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Binu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, M/s Tamta
Advocates, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv., F. A. Natnoo, Ashok Mathur, Tanveer
Ahmed Mir, Kartik Venu, Ms. Swati Khanna, Arjun Singh Bhati, Faheem
Shah, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. This petition seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution is at the instance of unsuccessful original respondents in a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
613
writ application filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir (Judicial
Officers) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court dated 27.05.2022 in the SWP No.
1350/2011 by which the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the
Respondents No. 3 to 19 herein (original writ applicants).
2. The facts giving rise to this special leave petition may be
summarized as under:
2.1 At the outset, we may state that this is a 2nd round of litigation
before this Court on the issue relating to fixation of the seniority
of the Munsiffs (Batch of 2003) for promotion to the post of Sub-
Judge in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (Now Union Territory).
2.2 This Court in the 1st round of litigation took notice of the f

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