P.K. DIXIT AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 08-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
P.K. DIXIT AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & OltS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1987 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ! AND G.L. OZA, J.] 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975: Rules 3, 8, y 
22, 23 and 26-Additional District and Sessions Judge-Seniority-
Determination of-Notification abolishing post of Civil and Sessions 
Judge-Effect of-Filling up of post from officers of Nyayika Sewa-
Appointment to the service on occurrence of substantive vacancies-
Officiating period-Whether to be considered as period of probation-
Confirmation-To be from the earliest date vacancy available and noL.l 
from a date fixed arbitrarily-Seniority to be counted on the basis of { 
date of confirmation-Promotions made after coming into force of 
rules-Principles of seniority applicable to. 
In May, 1974 the Higher Judicial Service for the State of UP was 
constituted, and the post of Civil and Sessions Judge was abolished. The 
U .P. State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 came into force with 
effect from May IO, 1975. 
The petitioners-State Judicial Service Officers-who were pro-
moted on various dates to the Higher Judicial Service and posted as )-
Additional District Judges/Civil and Sessions Judges before 1974, filed 
writ petitions in this Court challenging their inter se seniority, vis-a-vis, 
direct recruits contending that, on their confirmation, they were given 
seniority from a date chosen by the High Court arbitrarily, instead of 
from the date of their continuous officiation, which had resulted in their 
being placed much below the officers appointed much later by direct 
re~ruitmen~, ~hat the.re was no provision for direct recruitm~nt to the \ _ 
Higher J udmal Service before the 197 5 rules were brought mto force/ ·· 
and all the existing vacancies on that date were to be filled by only 
promotion, and therefore, the High Conrt, while confirming and giving 
the dates for the purpose of seniority, ought to have prepared a list of 
vacancies existing on the date the rules came into force and confirmed 
all those who were officiating as Additional and District Judges or Civil 
and Sessions Judges on that day in all those vacancies. They also con-
tended that >vhile computing the seniority only three years were counted ~ 
whereas they should have been given advantage of continuous officia-
tion as they were officiating in the posts before the 197 5 rules came into 
-
H existence. 
398 
P.K. DJXIT v. STATE OF U.P. 
399 
The aforesaid petitions were contested by the High Court con-
A 
tending that as it became necessary to fill in the temporary posts the 
formality of examining record and consideration by a Committee or the 
Full Court was not done, and all the petitioners were appointed ouly on 
the basis of seniority and not in accordance with the rules and, there-
fore, they could not be treated as appointed on probation from the date 
of their officiation and that even if an officer had been continuously B 
working for more than three years, still for the purpose of computing 
seniority only three years will be counted as per proviso to Rule 26. 
Allowing the writ petitions partly, 
. 
HELD: 1.1 The period of officiation has to be considered as 
~period of probation and the confirmation has to be from the date on C 
· which earliest a vacancy was available and the seniority has to be 
counted on that basis. [406A] 
1.2 Before the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 were 
brought into force, there was no rule requiring direct recruitment and D 
hence all the posts available were to be filled by promotion. In view of 
this, and in view of proviso to Rule 8, all the posts (permanent) avail-
able in the Higher Judicial Service plus thirty one temporary posts 
existing on that date, which may become permanent later, should be filled 
·---\ by promotion from amongst the members of the Nyayika Sewa. Some of 
-
the posts may be occupied by promotees officers who were given promo· 
E 
lions on ad hoc basis and working on these posts or that the posts may 
be lying vacant. Whatever may be the situation the matter will have to 
be gone into afresh by the High Court and all the posts in the Higher 
Judicial Service available as on May IO, 1974 pins thirty one posts have 
to be filled from the officers of the Nyayika Sewa. [403C, 406E-G] 
-""-\ 
1.3 In view of Para 3 of the Rules and the Notification abolishing 
F 
/ 
the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges, all those officers who were 
officiating as Civil and Sessions Judges on 8th 

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