S.N. DHINGRA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 31-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.N. DHINGRA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 31, 2001 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Service law : 
lnter-se seniority-Judicial Service-Direct recruits and promotees-
C Gradation list prepared by High Court on the directions of Supreme Court 
in Rudra Kumar's case included names of Promotee-respondents-Promotees 
appointed as Metropolitan Magistrates on fortuirous and slop-gap 
arrangement and later upgraded to Judicial Service-objection by direct-
recruit-petitioners for inclusion of their names on ground that they were not 
D initially appointed in the Judicial Service and were junior to them under the 
provisions of Criminal Procedure Code-Continuous length in service for 
seniority-Determination of-Held, on facts, promotees were initially 
appointed in Judicial Service and therefore, continuous service should be 
determined from the date of their appointment. 
E 
F 
This Court in Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 
(2000( 8 SCC 25, quashed the inter-se seniority lists prepared by High Court 
of Delhi, between Direct Recruits and Promotees of Delhi Higher Judicial 
Service on the ground that the guidelines and directions given by this Court 
in O.P. Singla's case (1984( 4 SC<:: 450 has not been rightly followed and 
directed the High Court to re-determine the inter-se seniority on the basis of 
continuous length of service in the cadre. The High Court, as per the 
directions, drew up a Gradation list which included names of promotee-
respondents. The respondents have been continuously working m Delhi' 
Higher Judicial Service w.e.f. 18th January, 1986 but had been posted as 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrates. Petitioners, who are direct-recruits, filed a 
G writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the inclusion 
of the names of promotee-respondents in the gradation list. 
The petitioners contended that the High Court has not properly 
implemented the directions given by the Court in Rudra Kumar's case in 
preparing the gradation list; that recruitment of respondents by a notification 
H 
770 
S.N. DHlNGRA v. U.0.1. 
771 
dated 16.1.1986 was fortuitous and stop-gap since a fresh appointment to the A 
service on temporary basis was made under the Recruitment Rules by a 
notification dated 24.2.1989 only; that, therefore, the services of the 
respondents from 16. J.I 986 to 24.2.1989 should not be reckoned for 
determining continuous length of service for seniority purposes; that by 
mere up-gradation of the post of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, those posts B 
did not form part of the cadre and, therefore, the respondents are not regular 
appointees to the Judicial Service; that as per the provisions of Cr.P.C., a 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrat.e is subordinate to Sessions Judge and, 
therefore, the respondents who continued as Chief Metropolitan Magistrates 
till February 1989 should not be held to be senior to the petitioners, who are 
recruited as Additional District and Sessions Judge in the year 1988 itself; C 
that this Court in O.P. Sing/a 's case, while involving the principle of 
'continuous length of service', held that the posts must belong to the same 
cadre discharging similar functions and bearing the same responsibility; 
and that by applying the said principle, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates 
cannot be said to discharge similar functions and bear the same responsibility 
as the Additional District and Sessions Judge entitling them for seniority on D 
the basis of continuous length of service for the period they continued as 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrates. 
Respondent-High Court contended that the appointment of the 
respondents on 16.1.1986 was to Delhi Higher Judicial Service and not against E 
any particular post, though their appointments were fortuitous and stop--
gap; that the Administrator is empowered under the Recruitment Rules to 
create cadre posts as may be necessary and in the absence of any embargo, 
the upgradation of the post of Chief Metropolitan magistrate and inclusion of 
the upgraded posts in the Judicial Service entitles the incumbents of those 
posts to claim seniority on the basis of their continuous service; and that the F 
fact of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates being subordinate to District and 
Sessions Judge under the provisions of Cr.P.C. does not take away the benefits 
of their continuous service in the cadre. 
Promotee-respondents contended that they were initially appointed to G 
Delhi Higher Judicial

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