LexV.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS. versus GOVT. OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2008] 13 S.C.R. 24 V.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS. \I. GOVT. OF U.P. & ANR. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 2007) SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ] Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953: Appointment to Higher Judicial Service - Selections made in 2008 - Rules as amended in 2007* prescribing 50% posts to be filled up by Civil Judge (Sr Division) on merit- cum-seniority, 25% on basis of limited competitive examina- tion amongst eligible Civil Judges (Sr Division) and 25% by D direct recruitment from eligible members of Bar through com- petitive examination - HELD: Recruitments of the year 2008 have been made complying with the Rules - As regards va- cancies prior to 2002, the same were rightly filled up as per unamended Rules - So far as remaining vacancies were con- E cerned, selection lists have been prepared complying with the amended Rules - Petitions disposed of accordingly F *All India Judges' Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 712 =(2002) 4 sec 247 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2002 ( 2 ) SCR 712 referred to para 3 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 2007 G (Under Article 32 of the constitution of India) WITH W.P. (C) NOs. 36 of 2008, 236, 295 of 2007 and I.A. No. 1/07 In I.A. No. 204/07 in W.P. (C) No. 1022/89 H 24 r ~ V.K. SRIVASTAVA & ORS. v. GOVT. OF 25 U.P. & ANR. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Dinesh Dwivedi, S.R. Singh, A Ajay Kumar Misra, Kavin Gulati, Avnish Pandey (forT. Mahipal), T.N. Singh, V.K. Singh, D.N. Dube, Abhisht Kumar, Rachana, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Deepti R. Mehrotra, -1 Vijay Pratap Singh, Vandana Mishra, B.P. Singh, Vibha Dwivedi, Anil Kumar Jha, Anuradha Dubey Mishra, Vikram and B P. Narasimhan for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WP(C)No.3612008: 1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks per- c mission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission sought for is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek other appropri- ate remedies with regard to their seniority. W.P.(C)Nos.206/2007, 236/2007, 295/2007 & 1.A.N0.1 in D I.A. NO. 20412007: 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions and Interim appli- cations are members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service. Writ Petition No.236/2007 and l.A.No.1/07 in l.A.No.204/2007 are E filed by the U.P.Judicial Officers Association. 3. In All India Judges' Association& Ors. Vs. Union of In- dia & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC p.247, this Court has directed that promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service should be F streamlined based on the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission. Prior to the directions given by this Court for fill- ing up the vacancies in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service there were only two sources i.e. one by promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) i.e. the members of the Subor- dinate Judicial Service and the other by direct recruitment as G ~ per Article 233 of the Constitution of India from the members of the Bar. This Court felt that the members of the subordinate judiciary should also be given a fast track promotion and those who are more meritorious in service should be given an oppor- tunity to compete for the posts of higher judicial services apart H ;~~r;,11._ 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A from the ordinary channel of promotion on seniority. To give opportunity to the subordinate judicial officers from getting early promotion to the Higher Judicial Service, this Court has directed that 25% of the vacancies of Higher Judicial Service shall be i filled up by a competitive examination and the Civil Judge (Se- r B nior Division) who are in the feeder category shall be given an opportunity to get such promotions. Keeping in view, the follow- c D E F G H ing direction was given by this Court: " ..... At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judge and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.