RUDRA KUMAR SAIN AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 22-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RUDRA KUMAR SAIN AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 22, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.P. MOHAPATRA, 
B 
DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970-Rules 8(2), 16 and 17-
Seniority-Determination of-Direct recruits and .promotees-Appointment of 
promotees on temporary posts or on temporary basis on substantive basis 
C 
under Rules 16 and 17 after due consultation and/or approval of High Court-
Promotees officiating on promoted posts for long duration-Held, seniority 
should be determined including the period of their continuous officiation in 
the promoted post-Such promotions are not fortuitous/ad hoc/stop gap-
Service law-Promotions. 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970-Rules 2(b)(d)(e) and 16-
'Members of the service'-Meaning o.f-'Cadre' and 'Service'-Ambit o.f-
Held, 'cadre' is a larger concept than 'service' -Promotees appointed under 
Rule 16 are 'members o.f the service'-Service Law-Promotions. 
Words and Phrases-' Fortuitous', 'ad hoc' and 'stop gap appointment' -
Meaning o.f-Service law. 
Under the provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 
1970, recruitment in the service is to be made either by promotion on the 
basis of selection from members of the Delhi Judicial Service or by direct 
recruitment from the Bar. As per the provisions of Rule 8(2) the seniority 
of direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees should be determined in the order of 
rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees based on 
the quota of vacancies reserved for both categories. Rule 16 permits crea-
tion of temporary posts in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and such posts 
D 
E 
F 
are to be filled in consultation with the High Court from amongst the 
G 
members of the Delhi Judicial Service. Rule 17 of the Delhi Higher Judicial 
Service Rules, 1970 permit the filling of, in consultation with the High 
Court, even substantive vacancies in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by 
making temporary appointment from amongst members of the Delhi Judi-
cial Service. 
H 
573 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
A three Judge Bench of this Court in O.P. Sing/a & Anr. etc. v. Union of 
B 
India & Ors., [1985] 1 SCR 351 while interpreting the provisions of Delhi 
Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, took notice of the long periods of 
officiation by the promotees on temporary posts created in the cadre of 
Additional District and Sessions Judge and evolved an equitable rule for 
determining the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees. 
This Court delivered two judgments; Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, on 
behalf of himself and Justice R.S. Pathak delivered one judgment whereas 
Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji delivered a separate (partly dissenting) judg-
ment. This Court directed that the seniority of the direct recruits must be 
determined according to the dates on which direct recruits were appointed 
C 
to their respective posts and the seniority of the promotees must be deter-
mined from dates from which the promotees have been officiating continu-
ously either in temporary posts or in substantive vacancies in a temporary 
capacity. This Court held that no distinction could be made between the 
direct recruits who are appointed to substantive vacancies in the service on 
D 
the recommendation of the High Court under Rule 5(2) pf the Delhi Higher 
Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and the promotees who are appointed in consul-
tation with the High Court to posts in the service under Rules 16 and 17 of 
the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. However, this Court indi-
cated that the persons belonging to the Delhi Judicial Service who are ap-
E 
pointed to temporary posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge on an 
ad hoc basis or for fortuitous reasons or by way of stop gap arrangement 
would not be entitled for seniority on the basis of their continuous length of 
service as they form a separate class. 
Pursuant to the direction of this Court in O.P. Sing/a, the High Court 
F 
of Delhi prepared a provisional seniority list allocating seniority according 
to the length of continuous officiation, regardless of whether an appointee 
held a temporary post or a permanent post or whether he was a promotee or 
a direct recruit. However, the High Court excluded officers who satisfied the 
qualification prescribed under Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service 
G 
Rules, 1970 but had beeg,.appointed u

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