SUJATA KOHLI versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 24-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
SUJATA KOHLI
v.
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT
OF DELHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2374 of 2020)
APRIL 24, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: r.27 – Challenge
to r.27 as being ultravires particularly with reference to decision of
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association – High Court rejected
the challenge – Held: High Court rightly rejected challenge to r.27
because this residuary clause in the Rules of 1970 does not offend
the law declared in All India Judges Association in any manner – This
residuary clause is not of equating the judicial officers with the
executive officers but only provides that in regard to the matters for
which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the
Rules of 1970, the relevant rules, directions or orders as applicable
to IAS shall regulate the conditions of service of the officers of
DHJS – A perusal of the other provisions in the Rules of 1970 makes
it clear that reference to the service conditions of the members of
IAS is not an anathema to these rules and, on the contrary, wherever
necessary, the applicable rules, orders or directions concerning
the members of IAS do govern the service conditions of the judicial
officers too – High Court establishment provided by way of the
impugned resolutions norms for promotion while taking cue from
the norms applicable to the members of IAS in the equivalent pay
scale – Providing for such norms does not in any manner stand at
conflict with the principles laid down in the case of All India Judges
Association.
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: Merit-cum-
seniority – Criteria for promotion to the posts of District and Sessions
Judges – Implementation of revised criteria in phased manner –
Challenged – Held: High Court,  in  its  Full Court meeting dated
28.04.2009 had adopted a resolution to the effect that, for being
selected/promoted as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of
DHJS ought to fulfil the criteria of possessing at least two ‘A’ (very
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 361
361
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
good) and three ‘B+’ (good) ACR gradings for the preceding five
years from the date of consideration for such appointment –
Thereafter, in its Full Court meeting dated 15.01.2010, the High
Court proceeded to modify the said criteria to the effect that a
candidate of DHJS ought to possess the minimum ‘A’ (very good)
grading in ACRs of each of the five years under consideration – As
against resolution dated 15.01.2010, the High Court received certain
representations, including those from the Associations of the Officers
and, upon consideration of these representations, a committee
comprising of four Judges recommended for implementation of the
revised criteria in a phased manner; and such recommendations of
the committee were accepted by the Full Court of the High Court –
In the given fact situation and the methodology of gradual
implementation adopted by the High Court, the suggestion on the
part of the appellant that there had been any so-called retrospective
operation of revised criteria was totally bereft of substance – In
view of the duties and responsibilities attached with the higher posts
of District and Sessions Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court,
the High Court cannot be faulted in providing for a reasonable
method of assessment of the requisite merit in the manner that a
candidate in the zone of consideration ought to be possessing
minimum five “very good” ACRs in the preceding five years from
the base year – In fact, the criteria so adopted had been the identical
one as provided for the members of IAS in the equivalent pay scales
– High Court did not change the eligibility criteria for appointment
to the post of District and Session Judge or Principal Judge, Family
Court but merely evolved a selection criteria for evaluation of eligible
candidates – There was no denial of a pre-existing right of the
appellant, who entered the zone of consideration only in the year
2014-15 whereas, the criteria in question was implemented for
appointments made from the year 2012.
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: r.27 – Whether
the appellant was denied fair and reasonable consideration of her
case for promotion to the posts of District and Sessions Judge/
Principal judge, Family Court by operation of criteria laid down in
the impugned resolutions – Held: Appellant was a member of DHJS
– By virtue of r.27, she would

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