LexORISSA JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION, CUTTACK versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ORISSA JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION, CUTTACK B v. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. NOVEMBER 26, 1990 [K. N. SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963-Rule 7-Constitu- tional validity of-Government to fix the quota for promotees and direct recruits. c Petitioners, the Association of the inservice employees of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service, in their petition under Article 32 challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 7 of t!te Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 and prayw for quashing the Notification dated 24.2.1987 inviting applications from members of the Bar for direct recruitment to the Orissa Judicial Service. It was contended that D most of the Judicial officers have been stagnating for many years on account of lack of promotional avenues, and that direct recruitment of the members of the Bar was not permissible under the law, and that the State Government and the High Court were acting contrary to law in making the direct recruitment. E Dismissing the writ petition, this Court, HELD: 1. Article 233(1) and (2) contemplates recruitment to the post of District Judge in the Superior Judicial Service of the State by promotion from the Subordinate Judicial Service as well as by direct recruitment from the members of the Bar. The recruitments are made F by the Governor of the State in consultation and on recommendation of the High Court. [350G-H] 2. The Constitution as well as the statutory rules framed under Article 309 provide for recruitment to the Senior Branch of Service by direct recruitment from the members of the Bar. The Constitu- G tional mandate can not be challenged merely because it might adver- sely effect the chances of promotion of the Junior Branch of Judicial Service. [351C-D] 3. The plea of frustration and stagnation raised on behalf of the petitioners was wrong and incorrect and their grievance against lhe H direct recruitment was unjustified. The members of the Judicial Service 348 JUDL. SERVICES ASSCN. v. STATE OF ORISSA [SINGH, J.] 349 should_ not indulge in this kind of frivolous litigation as it does not bring A credit to the Judicial Administration. [351E-G; 352A] 4. Though Rule 7 does not prescribe quota for the two sources of recruitment, but the State Government and the High Court of Orissa have fixed the quota of 25% for direct recruitment and 75% for promo- B tion by administrative orders. On the material placed before the court it is clear that recruitment by promotion to the service has been made in excess of 75 per cent quota. Therefore, the petitioner's grievance relat- ing to discrimination against the members of the Junior Branch of Judicial Service is without any substance. (3520-F] 5. Statutory rules can be supplemented by .administrative C instructions. In the absence of Statutory provision, the State Govern- ment in consultation with the High Court is competent to prescribe quota for the two sources of recruitment to the service by administra- tive orders. It would, however, be desirable and proper to prescribe quota for recruitment to the service in the Rules. Absence of statutory D provision in the Rules fixing the quota for the two sources of recruit- ment, results into a state of uncertainty leading to suspicion and litiga- tion. The State Government should therefore take inuuediate steps in consultation with the High Court for amending the Rules by prescribing quota to remove the uncertainty. [352F-H] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 485 of E 1987. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). P. Chidambarain, P.N. Misra and P.K. Jena for the Petitioner. N. S. Hegde, Additional Solicitor General and Raj Kumar Mehta for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. The Orissa Judicial Services Association has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the con- stitutional validity of Rule 7 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 and for quashing Notification dated 24.2.1987 inviting applications from members of the Bar for direct recruitment to the F G Orissa Superior Judicial Service. H A c D 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. The petitioner-Association, which represents the members of the Judicial Service of the State of Orissa has raised grievance that the Subordinate Judicial Service in the State continues to be in a pitiable condition and most of the jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.