RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
219
RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1514 of 2023)
MARCH 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law – Judicial service – Challenge to the
appointments in excess of the quota under limited departmental
examination – In All India Judges Association & ors. vs Union of India
it was specifically directed that there shall be 25% seats reserved
for direct recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats were to be filled up
by regular promotion of Civil Judges (Senior division) and 10% for
limited departmental competitive exam – All the High Courts were
directed to amend rules with effect from 01.01.2011 – In the writ
petition filed before the High Court, it was, inter-alia, prayed to
cancel the appointments that exceeds 10% of quota of the candidates
to appointed through limited competitive examination u/r 5(1)(b) of
rules 1994, since 2007 to 2017 exceeds the limit of 10% quota –
Writ petition dismissed – On appeal, held: In the instant case, in the
year 2017, there were 740 sanctioned posts – 74 seats were to be
filled up by limited departmental competitive examination against
which 78 posts were filled up by limited departmental examination
– Thereafter, further 11 posts were advertised, out of which 5 posts
were filled up – The result would be that the posts were filled up by
limited departmental competitive examination beyond 10% seats
quota for limited departmental competitive examination – As it was
directed by Supreme Court, 10% seats were required to be filled up
by limited departmental competitive examination w.e.f. 01.01.2011
– Therefore, the High Court has to undertake the exercise from
01.01.2011 adjusting the posts and if any appointments are found
to have been made beyond 10% seats in a particular recruitment,
the same shall have to be adjusted in future recruitment – So far as
challenge to the appointments made in excess of the quota under
limited departmental competitive examination since 2007 and the
appointments made in the year 2017/2018, no relief can be granted
to the original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointed
candidates – Further, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 219
219
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
to act as per the directions issued in the case of All India Judges’
Association – Appeal disposed of.
All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of
India and Others (2010) 15 SCC 170 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2010) 15 SCC 170
relied on
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1514
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2018 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WP No. 3190 of 2018.
Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv., Sriharsh N. Bundela, Akshay Kumar,
Maithreya Shetty, Dr. Ashutosh Garg, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AAG, Mrinal Gopal Elker,
Mrs. Anuradha Mishra, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun
Srivastaava, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3190/2018, by which the
High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by holding that the original
writ petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto, the:
original writ petitioner No.1 has preferred the present appeal.
2. Before the High Court, the original writ petitioners prayed for
the following reliefs:
A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call the entire record of the appointments of the Quota under
limited competitive examination since 2007 and pursue it and quash the
impugned order dated 19.01.2018 (Annex. P-11) and 25.01.2018.
B. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to cancel the appointments Exceeds 10% of Quota of the
candidates to appointed through limited competitive examination u/r 5(1)(b)
of rules 1994, since 2007 to 2017 exceeds the limit of 10% quota as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
221
fixed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and direct to filled up the seats with
regular promotion.
C. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct to the respondents to make the necessary amendment
in rule 5(1) (b) of the rules 1994 and reduce the limit from 25% to 10%
appointment in limited competitive examination so th

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