SRIKANT ROY & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 16-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2016] 11 S.C.R. 58 
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(CivilAppealNo. 10874of2016) 
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service - Selection 
process - Selection for the posts of Additional District Judges -
Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment 
and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001 - rr. 5 and 8 - Bifurcation 
of posts as per roster system pursuant to amended rules - In terms 
whereof, 50% of the posts to be filled up by promotees on the basis 
of merit-cum-seniority - Remaining 50% posts to be bifurcated 
equally, i.e. 25% by way of selection through Limited Competitive 
Examination and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar - Selection 
process initiated in August 2008 for filling up posts of ADJs by 
promotion through Limited Competitive Examination - Challenge 
to - High Court held that since 50% of the posts were already filled 
up by promotees on merit-cum-seniority basis, the left over 50% 
vacancies should be filled by promotion through Limited Competitive 
Examination and by the direct recruits in equal proportion - 011 
appeal, held: Amended Rules providing for the ratio to be 
maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became 
effective on 20'" August 2004 and had prospective application - In 
terms of the consistent stand of the State Government and the 
affidavit filed by High Court (Administrative Side), it is clear that 
the notification for filling up posts of ADJ by promotion issued in 
2008 was on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct 
recruit quota was available - High Court committed manifest error 
in not considering these relevant facts as to vacant posts in relation 
to direct recruit quota - Distinction between "post" and "vacancy" 
overlooked by High Court - Once it is found that no vacancy against 
the quota of direct recruilment was available at the relevant time, 
private respondents who were eligible to participate in the selection 
process through direct recruitment alone and not by promotion, had 
58 
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
59 
no locus to challenge the 2008. selection process - Resultantly, 2008 
A 
selection process held to be proper and final - Judiciary. 
Allowing the leading Civil Appeal and dismissing the three 
connected writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 When the amended Rules providing for tile 
ratio to be.maintained between the promotees and direct recruits 
became effective on 20 1h August 2004 and had prospective 
application, the factual position as obtained on 20'h August 2004 
would become relevant. [Para 12] [70-G-H] 
1.2 In view of Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed 
prior to the amendment of 20.08.2004 appointments made prior 
to 2004 were governed by the Rules as applicable at the relevant 
time. As per that dispensation, the direct recruit~ quota was 33% 
of the total posts. That was obviously in excess of 25% now 
specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 20.08.2004). 
Notably, the State of Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in 
C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court stating that no vacancy 
against 25% quota for direct recruitment existed in the State of 
Jharkband at that time. This affidavit was filed on 261h August 
2008 after the amended Rules were notified and came into force 
w.e.f. 201h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling up of 34 posts 
of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive 
Examination from amongst. the members of Jharkhand 
Subordinate Judges was issued in 2008 on the basis that no 
vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available. 
That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit filed by the 
High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment committed 
manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about the 
vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004, before recording 
a finding against the High Court and the State Government and 
to reject their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct 
recruit was available as on 30.04.2008. [Paras 13, 14) [71-A; 72-
C-F] 
1.3 Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct 
recruitment was available as on 30'h April, 2008, no fault can be 
found with the selection process commenced by the High Court 
for appointment in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial 
Service by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited 

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