RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 814 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 814 
,.
• 
A 
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN. 
v. 
-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
(Writ Petition (c) No. 576 of 2003) 
B 
JULY 7, 2009 
[RV. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 - r.6(2); 
Schedule-/ - Direct recruitment to Rajasthan Higher Judicial 
Service (RHJS) - Notification issued whereby 19 posts were 
advertised - Challenge to - Held : Strength of service is as 
mentioned in Schedule-I - For varying the strength, there has 
D to be a specific order under r. 6(2) -
Until and unless 
Schedule-I is amended in accordance with r. 6(2), strength of 
service cannot be varied - No such order was passed under 
r. 6(2) - Under the existing rule, strength of service of RHJS 
was 150 and since 41 direct recruits were already working, 
E there was no substantive vacancy - Impugned notification is 
therefore not legal and is quashed - However, it is open to 
the State Government in consultation with High Court to 
amend Schedule-I in accordance with r. 6(2) and thereby vary 
the strength of the service - Judicial Service. 
F 
By Notification No. Estt.(RJS)/118/2003 dated 
20.10.2003, 19 posts for direct recruitment to Rajasthan 
Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) were advertised. The 
notification was challenged before this Court by an 
association of judicial officers functioning in the State of 
G Rajasthan, who alleged that their chances of promotion 
got reduced by the said notification. According to them, 
t 
the total cadre strength of RHJS was 150 and since 25% 
posts were to be filled in by direct recruitment, there were 
no vacant post available for direct recruits as 25% of 150 
H 
814 
RAJASTHAN JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICERS ASSN. 815 
v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
_, 
is 37, while 41 direct recruits were already working in A 
~ 
RHJS . 
..,.., 
Allowing the main writ petition and dismissing the 
connected writ petition as having become infructuous, 
the Court. 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The impugned notification itself 
mentioned that it was being made subject to the decision 
+ 
in Veena Verma's case. In Veena Verma's case it was held 
by this Court that the strength of the servi~e is as 
mentioned in Schedule-I of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial c 
.. 
Service Rules, and for varying the strength there has to 
be a specific order under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Mere 
creation of posts without a specific order under Rule 6(2) 
only creates ex cadre posts, but does not amount to 
\ 
varying the strength of the service. The decision in Veena D 
-I 
Verma will apply to this case also. Until and unless 
Schedule-I of the Rule is amended in accordance with 
Rule 6(2), the strength of the service cannot be varied, as 
held in Veena Verma's case. But in the present case, no 
order was passed under Rule 6(2). [Paras 3 and 12] (817-
E 
C-E; 819-G-H; 820-A] 
1.2. In view of the decision in Veena Verma's case it 
has to be held that under the existing rule the strength 
of the service of RHJS is 150 and since there are 41 direct F 
recruits already working there is no substantive vacancy. 
Hence the impugned notification is illegal and is therefore 
quashed. However, it is open to the State Government in 
consultation with the High Court to amend Schedule-I to 
the Rules in accordance with Rule 6(2) and thereby vary 
G 
the strength of the service. [Paras 14 and 15) (820-C-D; 
820-E 
1 
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Veena 
Verma and another [C.A. No.5699 of 2000; decided by 
Supreme Court on 7th July, 2009), relied on. 
H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
All India Judges' Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & 
B 
Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 247 and Maha.rashtra State Judges 
Association & Ors. vs. The Registrar General, High Court, 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. 2008 (15) SCALE 
320, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (4) sec 247 
2008 (15) SCALE 320 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 5 
Para 5 
+ 
C 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
D 
576 of 2003. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
WITH 
W.P.(c) No. 275 of 2007. 
M.R. Calla, Rakesh Dwivedi, M.N. Rao, P.S. Patwalia, 
Manish Singhvi, AAG, Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Archana 
E Tiwari, Milind Kumar, Anant Prakash, Ankit Dalela, Shantanu 
Krishna, Rahul Dua, Mukti Chaudhary, Preetika Dwivedi, 
Annam D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain, Amit Pawan, S.K. 
Bhattacharya, Ajay Choudhary, Sandhya Goswami, Shobha, 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Surya Kant and Sunil K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.