Supreme Court clarifies Inter-Se Seniority of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Officers: Punjab and Haryana High Court vs. State of Punjab (2018)

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to a seniority list issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which determined the inter-se seniority of members of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. The dispute involved three categories of officers: promotees (50% quota), direct recruits (25% quota), and out-of-turn promotees (25% quota, later reduced to 10%). The primary contention was regarding the correctness of the seniority list dated 24.12.2007, issued by the High Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Punjab Superior Judicial Service is governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Key provisions include:

• Rule 7 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007: This rule outlines the method of appointment, specifying that 50% of posts are filled by promotion based on merit-cum-seniority (Rule 7(3)(a)), 25% by promotion through a limited departmental competitive examination (Rule 7(3)(b)), and 25% by direct recruitment (Rule 7(3)(c)). It also states that “These posts shall be filled in accordance with the Roster attached as Appendix-B” (Rule 7(4)).
• Rule 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007: This rule addresses seniority, stating that the original seniority of promotee officers shall not be disturbed (Rule 12(1)), the inter-se seniority of out-of-turn promotees shall be in the order of merit (Rule 12(2)), and the inter-se seniority of direct appointees shall be based on merit (Rule 12(3)).
• Rule 23 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007: This rule states that matters not specifically covered in these rules are governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as amended.
• Appendix B: This appendix provides the roster for filling the posts as per Rule 7(4).

The rules were framed in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges’ Association vs. Union of India, which aimed to establish a uniform procedure for recruitment and seniority determination in the higher judicial service.

Arguments

The following arguments were presented by the different parties:

• High Court: The High Court argued that the seniority list was prepared according to the 2007 Rules and that the promotees had joined first.
• Promotees: They contended that they had completed five years of service before the rules were framed and that they cannot be pushed down in seniority. They also argued that the roster is only for recruitment and not for seniority. They further contended that since no examination was held for promotion under Rule 7(3)(b), they were entitled to the quota meant for Rule 7(3)(b).
• Out-of-turn Promotees: They submitted that the diversion of quota under Rule 7(3)(b) to 7(3)(a) only occurs when no suitable candidate is available for appointment under Rule 7(3)(b). They also argued that the roster is not applicable for seniority.
• Direct Recruits: They argued that the roster should be applied for determining seniority. They contended that the process of recruitment was initiated on 2nd February 2008, and the promotions were held after that.

The arguments were complex, with each party relying on different interpretations of the rules and the Supreme Court’s directives.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota, whether their appointment was ad hoc, and whether they should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.
2. Whether appointments to the Superior Judicial Service should be made based on the roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007.
3. Whether inter-se seniority should be based on the roster in pursuance of Rule 7 read with Appendix B.
4. How the inter-se seniority of Fast Track Court Judges should be determined.
5. Reliefs, if any.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by all the parties and came to the following conclusions:

The court also discussed the authorities as follows:

• All India Judges’ Association and others vs. Union of India and others, 2002 (4) SCC 247: The court emphasized on the directions issued by the court in this case.
• R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab [1995] 2 SCC 745: The court observed that the roster system was approved by this court in this case.
• Srikant Roy and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 457: The court relied on this case to distinguish between “post” and “vacancy” and to emphasize that quota has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts.
• O.P. Singla and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 450: The court observed that a rule or section should not be construed in isolation and that the overall scheme of the rules should be considered.
• Union of India and Others Vs. N.R. Parmar and Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340: The court referred to this case for the principle of “rotation of quotas” and that the date of joining is not a relevant factor for determining seniority of direct recruits.
• Brij Mohan Lal versus Union of India and others, (2012) 6 SCC 502: The court relied on this case for the directions regarding absorption of Fast Track Court Judges into regular cadre.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the rules are implemented in a manner that promotes certainty and minimizes disputes. The court emphasized the importance of the roster system, as directed in All India Judges’ Association, to achieve uniformity in seniority determination. The court also considered the need to protect the existing rights of promotee officers and ensure that the new rules are not applied in a way that creates unjust results. The court also considered the fact that the Fast Track Court Judges had been absorbed into the regular cadre after a due process.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the roster system is applicable not only for recruitment but also for determining seniority among the three streams of officers in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.
• The court held that the promotions made under Rule 7(3)(a) were not ad hoc and they were not in excess of the quota.
• The seniority list was set aside, and a new list was created based on the roster system.
• The court emphasized that the date of joining is not a relevant factor for determining seniority.
• The court held that Fast Track Court Judges who were taken into the regular cadre in different streams have been rightly placed in the seniority list amongst their stream.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

1. The seniority list dated 24.12.2015 is set aside.
2. The list of 35 officers arranged as per the roster shall be treated as the final seniority list of the officers recruited in 2008.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the roster system is applicable not only for recruitment but also for determining seniority among the three streams of officers in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. This judgment clarifies the position of law that seniority has to be determined by the roster and not by the date of joining.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case provides clarity on the inter-se seniority of officers in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service. By upholding the application of the roster system, the court has ensured a more equitable and transparent method of determining seniority, aligning with the principles laid down in previous judgments. The court also held that the promotees were not in excess of their quota and that the Fast Track Court Judges were rightly placed in the seniority list.