NAWAL KISHORE MISHRA & ORS. ETC. versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 17-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 3 S.C.R. 107 
NAWAL KISHORE MISHRA & ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ORS. ETC. 
B 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1956-1957 of 2015 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2015. 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
c 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Service Law: . 
Judicial service. - Appointment by High Court - To the 
post of Direct Recruit District Judge '- In the unfilled D 
reserved vacancies - By way of promotion from the 'in 
service candidates' - Applying r.8(2) of Higher Judicial 
Service Rules, 1975 - Challenged by the appellant 
·~'-"' 
(candidates belonging to the 'direct recruit' source) - On the 
E 
ground that the appointment was not in strict compliance 
of the procedure prescribed u/s 3(2) of Public Service 
(Reservation) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
and Other Backward Classes Act, 1994 -
Seeking 
appointment to the unfilled posts from the 'direct recruit' F 
source in the first instance - Locus standi of appellants to 
challenge the appointment and propriety of the appointment 
- Held: In the facts of the case, the appellants had the locus 
to challenge the appointment- By applying s.3(2) of 1994 
Act, there is no scope of filling the unfilled vacancies of G 
reserved category either from the category of the direct 
recruits or from the category of in-service candidates by 
regular promotion - But in the present case, s.3(2), which 
107 
H 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A provides the methodology in respect of unfilled reserved 
posts, cannot be. involved because, what was adopted by 
the High Court by adopting the 1994 Act was reservation 
simp/icitor and not other consequences - The methodology 
in respect of the unfilled reserved posts of direct recruit 
B District Judges is governed by r.8 of Higher Judicial Service 
Rules - The High Court rightly filled up the vacancies by 
way of promotion, resorting to r.8(2) of the Higher Judicial 
Service Rules and also by applying proviso to r. 8(2) and 
thereby carry forward those unfilled reserved vacancies in 
C the future years of recruitment - Filling up the unfilled 
reserved vacancies from the direct recruit general category 
candidates would run counter to the rule of reservation and 
hence not permissible - Uttar Pradesh Public Service 
0 (Reservation) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
and Other Backward Classes Act, 1994 - s.3(1) and (2) -
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 - n: 7 
and 8(2). 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellants had every locus to 
challenge the appointment made by the High Court by 
invoking Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial 
Service Rules, 1975. It is not the stand of the High Court 
F that the posts in the reserve category were kept intact 
for being considered by way of selection and 
appointment from the reserve category candidates as 
provided under Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Public 
~ervice (Reservation) for Scheduled Castes and 
G Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes Act, 
1994. Section 3(2) would show that in the event of 
inability to fill up the reserved category posts, the 
process of selection should be continued in the very 
H , same year in which the selection was earlier made and 
NAWAL KISHORE MISHRA v. HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 109. 
THR. R.G. 
even thereafter if it remained unfilled, the post should A 
be kept vacant for the future years of recruitments. 
Since the High Court has not adopted the said 
procedure except making an attempt to fill up by way 
of selection in that year itself, there was every ·scope 
to contend that the procedure prescribed under Section B 
3(2) of the Reservation Act of 1994 was not strictly 
adhered to. A larger issue as to the entitlement of the 
appellants as successful candidates belonging to 
'direct recruit' source to seek appointment to the 
unfilled posts of that very source, namely, 'direct recruit' C 
though belonging to reserved category, merits 
consideration and would not disentitle the appellants 
to raise a challenge as made in the writ petition. [para 
10-11) [121-B-H; 122-A-C) 
2.1. The High Court was well justified in applying 
the extent of reservation prescribed in the Reservation 
Act, 1994 by invoking the existing Rule 7 of the High 
Court Rules. What was provided by way of reservation 
D 
for different categories including the Scheduled Castes E 
and Scheduled Tribes etc., prior to the coming into force 
of 1994 Act, has been bro

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