THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL versus GOTO ETE & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 23-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
[2018]  10  S.C.R. 261
         261
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT THROUGH
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
v.
GOTO ETE & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018)
APRIL 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Judicial Service – Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules,
2006 – Proviso to r.7 – Consideration for regularisation –
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as Additional Deputy
Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on
contract basis – They were to man Fast Track Courts (FTC) –
Respondents claimed for regularisation to the said posts and to
work as Additional Sessions Judges, invoking the provisions of r.7
of the Rules – However, the Committee consisting of High Court
Judges rejected the claim of the respondents – Thereafter, High
Court issued advertisement on 31.07.2008 for the post of District
and Sessions Judge, in which respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared
but could not qualify and respondent no.1 did not appear – High
Court took decision on 31.07.2012 to undertake selection process
of the FTC Judges in terms of the Brij Mohan Lal (2) case – None
of the respondents were able to qualify the exam, consequently their
services were dispensed with – Writ Petition filed by the respondents
– High Court set aside the order dispensing the ad hoc services of
the respondents and directed the State to start the consultation
process for absorption of respondents – On appeal, held: The
Committee of High Court Judges was of the opinion that the
respondents were not entitled for appointment to the regular cadre
of the Higher Judicial Service – The said order was not challenged
by the writ petitioners/respondents – Even otherwise, such decision
of the Committee stood vindicated as two respondents who had
appeared in examination vide advertisement dated 31.07.2008 failed
to qualify in the selection process and other respondent did not
appear, and further all the respondents failed to qualify another
test which was conducted pursuant to Brij Mohan Lal (2) case –
This fact pointed out incompetence of the respondents – Proviso to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
r.7 of 2006 Rules provided only to ‘consider’ the cases of the
respondents for absorption – Cases of the respondents were
considered, but they were not found fit for absorption in the regular
cadre – The proviso never gave any mandate that the respondents
had to be necessarily absorbed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  It is stated that service records of the writ
petitioners were examined by the Committee consisting of three
High Court Judges and on the said examination the Committee
was of the opinion that the writ petitioners were not entitled for
appointment to the regular cadre of Higher Judicial Service.  No
challenge was laid by the writ petitioners to the manner in which
their cases were considered and rejected by the High Court or
that such a consideration suffered from any kind of blemish.  Even
otherwise, such a decision of the Committee stands vindicated
inasmuch as:
(i) the two writ petitioners who appeared in the examination
pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Grade-I District and
Sessions Judge failed to qualify in the selection process and the
third writ petitioner did not appear at all; and
(ii) the petitioners even failed to qualify the test which was
conducted pursuant to Brij Mohan Lal (2) in which the writ
petitioners had appeared.  This fact is noted just to point out the
incompetence of the writ petitioners. [Para 30] [287-G-H; 288-
A-C]
1.2 The ratio of Brij Mohan Lal (2) is discussed by this
Court in detail in the case of Mahesh Chandra Verma and there
also the Court was of the opinion that appointment on regular
cadre should be made only on the basis of written examination
etc. as laid down in Brij Mohan Lal (2). [Para 31] [288-D-E]
2.1  Even in terms of proviso to Rule 7 of Arunachal Pradesh
Judicial Service Rules, 2006, the cases of the writ petitioners
were considered, but they were not found fit for absorption in the
regular cadre. [Para 31] [288-E-F]
2.2  Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules, which lays down the procedure
and method of recruitment to the post of Additional Sessions
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
263
Judges. The case of the writ petitioners is not covered by the
main provision.  When two posts of Grade-I District and Sessions
Judges, after their creation vide Notification dated December
17, 2007 were advertised, two of the writ petitioners appeared
but failed to qualify in the said sele

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