O.P. GARG AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 23-04-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
O.P. GARG AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
APRIL 23, 1991 
B 
[M.H. KANIA, KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
c 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules 1975: Rules 5, 6, 8, 
18, 22, 26-Promotees and direct recruits-Fixation of seniority-
Validity of rules-Considered. 
The appellants as well as the respondents are members of the 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service; while the appellants are the 
promotees, the respondents have been appointed direct to that service. 
This is their second ronnd of litigation in this Conrt concerning their 
inter se seniority in the service. 
D 
The Higher Jndicial Service was initially governed by statutory 
rules called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953. 
Recruitment to the service under the said rules was from sources, by 
promotion and by direct recruitment. This Court in Chandra Mohan v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh, [1967] 1 S.C.R. 77 struck down the 1953 Rules 
in so far as the said Rules provided for direct recruitment to the service. 
E 
As a consequence, there was no direct recruitment to the Service till 
1975-76, and the service consisted of only promotees with the designa-
tion of Civil and Sessions Judges. 
On May 8, 1974 the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Aboli-
tion of Cadre of the Civil and Sessions Judges) Rules, 1974 came into 
F 
force. Under Rules 2 and 3 of the 1974 Rules, the existing cadre of Civil 
and Sessions Judges stood abolished and a new cadre of Additional 
District and Sessions Judges came into existence, the Civil and Sessions 
Judges holding permanent or temporary posts in the Service were 
re-designated as Additional District and Sessions Judges with effect 
from the date when the 1974 Rules came into force. On that date, 271 
G 
officers were working as Additional District and Sessions Judges 
against 235 posts (153 permanent and 82 temporary) in the service. 
The Service was reconstituted and given a fresh look by the rules 
framed under Article 309 read with Article 233 of the Constitution of 
India, called the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 
H which came into force on April 5, 1975. On that date 263 officers were 
424 
1 
O.P. GARG v. STATE OF U.P. 
425 
working as Additional District and Sessions Judges, against 236 posts in 
the service. 
~ 
Recruitment to the service under the 1975 Rules is from three 
A 
sources and is based on quota as provided therein. The three sources of 
recruitment are (i) direct recruitment from the Bar, (ii) Uttar Pradesh 
Nyayik Sewa, and (iii) Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service (Judicial 
B 
Magistrates). 
In the first round of litigation P. K. Dixit and other promo tee 
officers flled two writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution 
challenging the seniority assigned to them under the 1975 Rules. This 
Court by its judgment dated October 8, 1987 in P. K. Dix it v. State of 
U.P., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 398 partly allowed the writ petitions and directed C 
the High Court to frame the seniority list afresh keeping in view the 
observations made in that judgment. 
In pursuance to the directions of this Court in Dixit case a five-
Judge committee of the High Court finalised the seniority list on August D 
25, 1988. The High Court accepted the contention of direct recruits and 
gave 153 permanent posts existing on May 10, 1974 plus 31 posts, which 
became permanent subsequently, to the promotees. Consequently, out 
of the 263 Additional District and Sessions Judges who were holding the 
. posts on April 5, 1975 only 184 (153 + 31) were taken to be the existing 
members of the Service and the remaining officers were asked to enter E 
the service tbrongh the promotion quota under the 1975 rules. 
1 
In the second round, the promotees have filed writ petition chal-
leng_ing the final seniority list. P. K. Dixit and others, petitioners in the 
original Dixit-case have filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking clarifi-
cation of the said judgment. The direct recruits have filed writ petition F 
under Article 32 impugning the final seniority list issued by the High 
Court. 
Before this Court, the promotees, the direct recruits as well as the 
High Court have sought support from Dixit-case on the basis of their 
own interpretation of that judgment. The promotees claim that on April G 
5, 1975 when the 1975 rules came into force all the 236 posts in the 
Serivce had already been consumed by the existing members of the service 
who were working as Additional Distric

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