Supreme Court clarifies confirmation rules for Jharkhand Judicial Service: Ashok Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 417

Judges: J. Chelameswar, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a judicial officer be denied confirmation and increments for not passing a departmental Hindi exam, even after clearing the mandatory judicial academy exam? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Jharkhand Judicial Service. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, and whether they implicitly required a departmental Hindi examination for confirmation of service, despite not explicitly mentioning it. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, with Justice J. Chelameswar concurring.

Case Background

The appellants were recruited as Civil Judges in Jharkhand through notifications issued on 5 January 2011 and 28 March 2011. These notifications stated that appointments were subject to qualifying tests as per the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Regulation 2005 Rules 21 and 22, and the recommendations of the Jharkhand High Court. The appellants completed their one-year training at the Judicial Academy and passed the required examination. However, they were not confirmed after three years of continuous service. The reason given was their failure to clear a departmental Hindi examination conducted by the Board of Revenue. The appellants argued that they were repeatedly informed that they were exempted from this Hindi examination as per the 2004 Rules.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 21(b), which states:

“21 (b). For a period of one year from the date of appointment, or from such other date as the High Court may prescribe, that the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif)/Civil Judge, Senior Division (Subordinate Judge) shall be admitted in the one year training course at the Judicial Academy of Jharkhand at Ranchi or such other place as the High Court may prescribe. After completion of one year training course, the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif) trainee Civil Judge, Senior division (subordinate Judge) – trainee shall appear in the examination to be conducted by the Judicial Academy under the directions and guidance of the High Court and the successful passing of this Examination shall alone be the condition precedent for confirmation of the trainees as Civil Judges, Junior Division (Munsif)/Civil Judges, Senior Division (subordinate Judges).”

The 2004 Rules also repealed the earlier 2001 Rules. Rule 27 of the 2004 Rules states:

“27. Repeal and Savings: (i) Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2001 issued vide notification no.185 dated the20thAugust, 2001 are hereby repealed.
(ii) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the2001 Rules shall be deemed to have been taken under these Rules and any selection process initiated or appointments made pursuant to 2001Rules shall be deemed to have been done under these Rules.”

The 2001 Rules, unlike the 2004 Rules, referred to the “Departmental Examination Rules,” which included the requirement to pass a Hindi examination as per Rule 27(a) of the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Training and Departmental Examination Rules, 1963 (1963 Bihar Rules):

“27. (a) Every probationer is required to pass an examination in the following subjects :-
(i) the High Court’s General Rules and Circular Orders (both criminal and civil), as laid down in sub-rule (b) to this rule. The examination in the High Court’s General Rules and Circular Orders will test in particular the extent to which the examinee has acquired practical facility in applying the rules.
(ii) Procedural Law and Law of Evidence as laid down in sub-rule (c) to this Rule.
(iii) Hindi by the lower and higher standards as described in Appendix-I of this Rule.”

The High Court of Jharkhand had relied on Rule 7 of the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Regulation, 1968, and Rule 27(a) of the 1963 Bihar Rules, to justify the requirement of the Hindi examination.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that the 2004 Rules, which superseded the 2001 Rules, did not include any requirement to pass a departmental Hindi examination.
• They contended that Rule 21(b) of the 2004 Rules explicitly states that passing the Judicial Academy examination “shall alone” be the condition precedent for confirmation.
• The appellants submitted that the 1963 Bihar Rules, which were applicable under the 2001 Rules, could not be read into the 2004 Rules since the 2004 Rules were a complete code in themselves.
• The appellants further argued that they were repeatedly informed that they were exempted from taking part in the Hindi examination as per the 2004 Rules.
• They also highlighted that denying them confirmation and increments based on the Hindi exam would unfairly affect their pension scheme, moving them from the old scheme to the new contributory scheme.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the 1963 Bihar Rules continued to apply even after the enactment of the 2004 Rules.
• They contended that the High Court had the power to prescribe additional requirements, including the Hindi examination, under Article 235 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondents relied on Rule 21(b) of the 2004 Rules, read with Rule 7 of the Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Regulation, 1968, and Rule 27(a) of the 1963 Bihar Rules, to justify the requirement of the Hindi examination.
• The respondents submitted that the passing of the Hindi Examination as well as the Departmental Examination by Civil Judge (Junior Division) is a condition precedent for their increment as well as confirmation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether the passing of a departmental Hindi examination is a mandatory condition for the confirmation of Civil Judges in Jharkhand, in addition to the examination conducted by the Judicial Academy, under the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Rattan Lal & Co. and Anr. v. Assessing Authority, Patiala & Anr. [(1969) 2 SCR 544] – The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to highlight that on the creation of a new State after reorganisation, the original Act cannot be amended from a date anterior to the appointed date and the original Act would apply as an independent Act to each of the States.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 234 of the Constitution of India – This article deals with the recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service of a State.
• Article 309 of the Constitution of India – This article empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State.
• Article 235 of the Constitution of India – This article vests the control over district courts and subordinate courts in the High Court.
• Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 – These rules govern the recruitment and service conditions of judicial officers in Jharkhand.
• Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2001 – These rules were superseded by the 2004 Rules.
• Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 – This act led to the creation of the State of Jharkhand from Bihar.
• Bihar Government Servant (Hindi Examination) Regulation, 1968 – This regulation prescribes the rules for Hindi examinations for government servants in Bihar.
• Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Training and Departmental Examination Rules, 1963 – These rules specify the departmental examinations for judicial officers in Bihar, including the Hindi examination.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Rattan Lal & Co. and Anr. v. Assessing Authority, Patiala & Anr. [(1969) 2 SCR 544]* – The Court used this case to highlight that laws of the original state apply to the new state until amended by the new state.
• The Court acknowledged that the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 were the primary rules governing the recruitment and service conditions of judicial officers in Jharkhand.
• The Court held that the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2001 were specifically repealed by the 2004 Rules and were no longer applicable.
• The Court clarified that the Bihar Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Training and Departmental Examination Rules, 1963, which were applicable under the 2001 Rules, could not be read into the 2004 Rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear language of the 2004 Rules, which explicitly stated that passing the Judicial Academy examination was the sole condition precedent for confirmation. The Court emphasized that when the 2004 Rules were enacted, they superseded all previous rules, including the 2001 Rules, and the 1963 Bihar Rules could not be read into the 2004 Rules. The Court also noted the lack of any specific provision in the 2004 Rules requiring a departmental Hindi examination. The Court was also concerned about the potential impact on the appellants’ pension scheme.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that the 2004 Rules were a complete code in themselves and did not require any additional conditions for confirmation other than passing the Judicial Academy examination. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the 1963 Bihar Rules could be read into the 2004 Rules. The Court also addressed the potential impact on the appellants’ pension scheme, ensuring that they would be covered under the old pension scheme.

The court stated:

“The 2004 Rules also make it clear that the said Rules shall prevail for the purposes of selecting, recruiting and appointing Members of the Jharkhand Judicial Service and regulating the terms and conditions of their service. Rule 21(b) of the 2004 Rules also makes it abundantly clear that the successful passing of the examination “shall alone” be the condition precedent for confirmation of the trainees. This leaves no manner of doubt qua the 2004 Rules, i.e., that they alone prevail and they in turn had not provided for the requirement of clearing the “higher grade” Hindi examination by the Board of Revenue.”

“We are, thus, of the view that the legal position prevalent as per the 2004 Rules does not require passing of the Hindi examination held by the Revenue Department as the 1963 Bihar Rules cannot be read into the 2004 Rules.”

“We, thus, also hold that the appellants would be entitled to be covered under the old pension scheme relatable to their entry into the service in the year 2011.”

Key Takeaways

• The Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, do not mandate passing a departmental Hindi examination for the confirmation of Civil Judges.
• Passing the examination conducted by the Judicial Academy is the sole condition precedent for confirmation under the 2004 Rules.
• The 1963 Bihar Rules, which required a Hindi examination, are not applicable under the 2004 Rules.
• Judicial officers who joined service in 2011 are entitled to be covered under the old pension scheme.
• The State of Jharkhand is free to amend the 2004 Rules to include a Hindi examination requirement, or the High Court may itself conduct such an examination.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents to ensure that the differential mandatory benefits are remitted to the appellants within three months from the date of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment that was analysed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, are a complete code in themselves and do not require any additional conditions for confirmation of Civil Judges other than passing the examination conducted by the Judicial Academy. The Court clarified that the 1963 Bihar Rules could not be read into the 2004 Rules. This case clarifies the importance of interpreting rules based on their explicit language and the principle that once a rule is superseded, it ceases to have effect. This ruling sets a precedent for the interpretation of service rules in Jharkhand and similar situations in other states.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, do not require Civil Judges to pass a departmental Hindi examination for confirmation. The Court emphasized that the 2004 Rules superseded the 2001 Rules and that the passing of the Judicial Academy examination was the sole condition precedent for confirmation. The Court also ensured that the appellants would be covered under the old pension scheme. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of service rules and provides relief to the appellants who were unfairly denied confirmation and increments.