O.P. SINGLA & ANR. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 14-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
351 
O.P. SINGLA & ANR. ETC 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
August 14, 1984 
B 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD. C.J. R. S. PATHAK AND 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJJ, JJ]. 
Se, vice jurisprudence-Seniority-Fixation of inter-se seniorUy of pron1oled 
officers and direct recruits lo the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, under the Delhi 
Judicial Service Rules, 1970-Whether the direct recruits who are appointed later 
than the pronwted officers under rule 16, termed ten1porary appointments, rank 
senior-Whether such pro1noted officers can be treated as men1bers of Higher 
Judicial Strvice as defined in rule 2 (b), 2 (d), 6, 7, 16 and 17 applicability quota 
and rota rule explained--:Binding nature of previous Judgments of the Court 
explained, whether the rules justify the ranking in seniority list-Constitution of 
India, Articles 14 and 16. 
Regular recruitment after the initial recruitment to the Delhi Higher 
Judicial Service under Rule 7 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 is made 
by promotion on the basis of selection from members of the Delhi Judicial 
Service who have completed not less than 10 years of service and by direct 
recruitment from the Bar subject to the provision that not more than one third 
of the substantive posts in the service shall be held by direct recruits. In the 
case of promoted officers, the appointment to the service shall be made by the 
Administrator in consultation with the High Court while the appointment of 
direct recruits shall be made on the recommendations of th~ High Court. · 
Rule 2(b) provides that cadre post means any post specified in the 
Schedule and includes ~a temporary post carrying the same designation as that 
of any of the post specified in the Schedule and any other temporary post 
declared as cadre post by the Administrator. Under rule 16 the Administrator 
is empowered to create, temporary post in the service and such temporary post 
shall be filled in consultation with the High Court from amongst the members 
of the Delhi Judicial Service. Under rule 17 the Administrator n1ay in consul-
tation with the High Court fill substantive vacancies in the service by making 
temporary appointment£ thereto from amongst members of the Delhi Judicial 
Service. Rule 8 speaks of seniority while '.'the inter-se seniority of members of 
the Delhi Judicial Service promoted to the service shall be the same as in the 
Delhi Judicial Service, the seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis pron1otees shall be 
determined in the order or rot::ition of vacancies between the direct recruits and 
promotees based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for both categories by rule 
7 provided that the firSt available vacancy will be filled by a direct recruit and 
ihe next two vacancies by promotees and so on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] I s.C.R· 
The Administrator have appointed the writ petitioners and also the 
defendants by resorting to Rule 16 and Rule 7 respectively. But when the 
seniority list was Prepared some of the defendants who are direct recurits were 
ranked higher than the promoted officers who have been appointed several 
years earlier under Rule 16. Hence the two writ petitions by the promoted 
officers contending that seniority between promotees and direct recruits must be 
determined in accordance with the re~pective dates of their continuous officia· 
tion as Additional District and Sessions Judges and that direct recruits who are 
appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges after the promotecs are so 
appointed cannot rank higher in seniority over the promotees and that pro~ 
motees discharge identical functions and bear the same responsibilities as direct 
recruits and upon their appointments they constitute only common class and 
hence to give seniority to the direct recruits who are appointed later in point of 
time is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the petitions in part, the Court 
HELD : (Per majority) 
Per Chandrachud, C. J. 
t:l. The 
i1npugned seniority list, which is challenged by the promoted 
officers has been prepared on the basis that the rule of quota and rota will 
continue to apply notwithstanding the fact that appointments are 'llade 
to the service under rules 16 and 17 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules and is 
violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution since the rule of quota and 
rota prescribed by the proviso to rule 7 would cease to apply when appoint-
ments are made to service under ru

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