R. POORNIMA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 04-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
89
R. POORNIMA AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No. 1172 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 217(2) – Explanation (a) and
(aa) u/Art. 217(2) – The petitioners as well as the respondent nos.
24 to 29 were duly selected and appointed as District Judges by
way of direct recruitment in the year 2011 – The respondent nos. 5
to 23 were appointed as Judicial Officers in the cadre below that of
District Judges – After long service, they gained promotion to the
post of District Judges – But their promotion happened after the
date on which the petitioners were directly recruited as District
Judges – This is how and why the petitioners became seniors to the
respondent nos. 5 to 23 – The grievance of the petitioners is that
despite being the senior-most in the cadre of District Judges, they
have been overlooked and their juniors now recommended for
elevation to the High Court as Judges – The Collegium of the High
Court found that the petitioners had not completed 10 years of
service in a Judicial Office as required by Art. 217(2)(a) – Therefore,
recommended the names of persons who fulfilled the eligibility
criteria – Writ petition – Petitioners contended that the qualifications
prescribed in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Art. 217 are
in the alternative, but Art. 217 does not create separate streams for
appointment, with independent quotas for such streams and to
interpret Explanation (a) in such a manner that only a person who
resigned from Judicial service and became an Advocate will be
eligible to club both the periods, will result in unfair and hostile
discrimination of Judicial officers, offending Art. 14 and such
interpretation has to be avoided – Held: The clause (2) of Art. 217
has two parts, the first of which is in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and
the second in Explanation (a) and (aa) – Explanation (a) goes with
sub-clause (a) and Explanation (aa) goes with sub-clause(b) –
According to Explanation (a), the period of service rendered by a
person in a judicial office has to be computed by taking into account
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 89
89
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
the period during which he has been an advocate of a High Court
– But the condition for such addition of some other period, under
explanation (a) is that such other period should have followed and
not preceded the judicial service – This is made clear by the use of
the words ‘after he has held any judicial office’ – However, what is
sought by the petitioners herein is to club with their judicial service,
the experience that they had at the Bar before joining Judicial service
– The petitioners want the word ‘after’ to be interpreted to mean
and include ‘before’ – This is not permissible – Further, the Art.
217(2) merely prescribes the eligibility criteria and method of
computation – There are two separate queues, one from judicial
service and another from the Bar – The queue to which a person is
assigned, depends upon his status (either as an advocate or judicial
officer) on the date of consideration – Hopping on and hopping
off from one queue to other, is not permissible – As far as contention
regarding Art.14 is concerned, there is no violation of Art. 14, as
Art. 217(2) does not guarantee anyone with the right to be appointed
as a Judge of the High Court – Therefore, the claim of the writ
petitioners is wholly untenable – Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Clause (2) of Article 217 has two parts, the first
of which is in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and the second in Explanation
(a) and (aa). The first indicates in plain terms, that to be qualified
for appointment, a person (i) must be a citizen of India and (ii)
must have either held a judicial office for 10 years or been an
Advocate of a High Court for 10 years. [Para 22][100-G]
2. The second part of clause (2) of Article 217, which has
taken shape in the form of an ‘Explanation’, merely explains the
manner in which the periods indicated in sub-clauses (a) and (b)
are to be construed. Interestingly, the Explanation under clause
(2) of Article 217 also has 2 parts, one going with sub-clause (a)
and another going with sub-clause (b). [Para 24][101-C-D]
3. Explanation (a) goes with sub-clause (a) and Explanation
(aa) goes with sub-clause (b). This is because, Explanation (a)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
permits 

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