Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 229
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a High Court exceed the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examinations in the higher judiciary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, clarifying the binding nature of its previous directives. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established quotas in judicial appointments to maintain fairness and transparency. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the appointments made to the higher judiciary through a limited competitive examination. The petitioners contended that the High Court had exceeded the 10% quota mandated by the Supreme Court in its earlier judgment in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 170]. They argued that despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions to amend service rules to reflect the 10% quota by January 1, 2011, the High Court had failed to do so, resulting in appointments beyond the permissible limit.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Madhya Pradesh High Court initially amended Recruitment Rules. |
| 2007-2017 | Appointments made through limited competitive examination, allegedly exceeding the 10% quota. |
| 2010 | Supreme Court judgment in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India directed all High Courts to reserve 10% of seats for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination. |
| 1.1.2011 | Effective date for amendment of Service Rules as per Supreme Court’s direction. |
| 2017 | 78 posts filled through limited departmental examination against a sanctioned strength of 740 posts (74 seats). Further, 11 posts were advertised, of which 5 were filled. |
| 19.01.2018 | Impugned order regarding appointments. |
| 25.01.2018 | Another impugned order regarding appointments. |
| 23.02.2018 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the writ petition. |
| 2018 | Madhya Pradesh High Court amended Recruitment Rules after conclusion of proceedings before the Supreme Court. |
| March 13, 2023 | Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. |
Course of Proceedings
The original writ petitioners approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking various reliefs, including quashing of appointments made in excess of the 10% quota, directions to amend the service rules, and initiation of departmental inquiry against authorities who disobeyed the Supreme Court’s orders. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court, instead of remanding the matter, decided to consider the issues on merit.
Legal Framework
The core legal framework for this case is based on the Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 170]. The Supreme Court had directed that:
- 25% of seats in the higher judiciary should be filled by direct recruitment from the Bar.
- 65% of seats should be filled by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
- 10% of seats should be filled by limited departmental competitive examination.
The Supreme Court also directed all High Courts to amend their existing service rules to reflect these quotas, effective from January 1, 2011. It was further clarified that if the rules were not amended, the Supreme Court’s order would prevail, and recruitments should be made accordingly from January 1, 2011.
Arguments
The original writ petitioners argued that the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had violated the Supreme Court’s directions by filling up more than 10% of the posts through limited departmental competitive examination. They contended that the appointments made beyond the 10% quota were illegal and should be quashed.
The High Court, on the other hand, submitted that it had initially amended the Recruitment Rules in 2005, but those rules were later set aside. The High Court further argued that it had amended the Recruitment Rules in 2018, in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the High Court contended that no relief could be granted to the petitioners in the absence of the selected/appointed candidates.
| Submissions | Petitioners’ Arguments | High Court’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Quota Violation | ✓ The High Court exceeded the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination. | ✓ The High Court initially amended rules in 2005, which were later set aside. |
| Non-compliance with Supreme Court Directives | ✓ The High Court failed to amend service rules by January 1, 2011, as directed by the Supreme Court. | ✓ The High Court amended the rules in 2018, in line with Supreme Court’s directions. |
| Validity of Appointments | ✓ Appointments made beyond the 10% quota are illegal and should be quashed. | ✓ No relief can be granted in the absence of the selected/appointed candidates. |
| Relief Sought | ✓ Quashing of appointments made in excess of 10% quota. ✓ Amendment of service rules to comply with Supreme Court directives. ✓ Initiation of departmental inquiry against authorities for non-compliance. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:
- Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had exceeded the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination, as directed by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court exceeded the 10% quota? | Yes, the High Court exceeded the 10% quota. | The Supreme Court found that the High Court had filled more than 10% of the posts through limited departmental competitive examination, violating the directions in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
- All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 170] – Supreme Court of India: This case provided the basis for the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination. The Supreme Court reiterated that its directions were binding and had to be followed by all High Courts.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 170] | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate the 10% quota for limited departmental competitive examination and directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to adhere to it. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with the following directions:
- The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was directed to act as per the directions issued in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, specifically paragraphs 8 and 9.
- The High Court was directed to ensure that only 10% of seats are filled through limited departmental competitive examination from January 1, 2011.
- If any recruitment after January 1, 2011, exceeded the 10% quota, those posts were to be adjusted in future recruitments.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| High Court exceeded the 10% quota. | The Court agreed that the High Court had exceeded the 10% quota. |
| Appointments beyond the 10% quota should be quashed. | The Court did not quash the appointments due to the absence of the selected/appointed candidates. Instead, it directed the High Court to adjust the excess appointments in future recruitments. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India [(2010) 15 SCC 170] | The Court reiterated the binding nature of the directions issued in this case, emphasizing the need for all High Courts to adhere to the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examination. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure compliance with its previous directions in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India. The Court emphasized the binding nature of its orders and the necessity for all High Courts to adhere to the prescribed quotas for judicial appointments. The Court also took into consideration that the selected candidates were not made parties to the case, therefore, instead of quashing the appointments, the Court directed the High Court to adjust the excess appointments in future recruitments.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Compliance with Supreme Court Directives | 60% |
| Adherence to Quotas | 30% |
| Practical Considerations (non-quashing of appointments) | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court stated, “Therefore, as per the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid decision, on and from 1.1.2011, only 10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination. Any appointment beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive examination therefore shall have to be considered appointment excess in quota.”
The Court also noted, “Therefore, the High Court has to undertake the exercise from 1.1.2011 adjusting the posts and if any appointments are found to have been made beyond 10% seats in a particular recruitment, the same shall have to be adjusted in future recruitment.”
Further, the Court clarified, “In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal stands disposed of by directing as under: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh is hereby directed to act as per the directions issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association (supra), more particularly directions contained in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision and is directed to see that 10% seats are filled up by limited departmental competitive examination on and from 1.1.2011 and if it is found that in any recruitment subsequent to 1.1.2011, the 10% quota is breached, all such posts shall be adjusted in the future recruitments.”
Key Takeaways
- High Courts must strictly adhere to the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examinations, as mandated by the Supreme Court.
- Any appointments made in excess of the 10% quota after January 1, 2011, must be adjusted in future recruitments.
- The Supreme Court’s directions in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India are binding on all High Courts and must be strictly followed.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to:
- Ensure that only 10% of seats are filled through limited departmental competitive examination from January 1, 2011.
- Adjust any excess appointments made after January 1, 2011, in future recruitments.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India regarding the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examinations are binding on all High Courts. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the prescribed quotas and clarifies that any deviations must be rectified in future recruitments. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal position.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces the binding nature of its directions regarding the 10% quota for appointments through limited departmental competitive examinations. The Court directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to ensure strict compliance with these directions and adjust any excess appointments in future recruitments. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to established quotas in judicial appointments to maintain fairness and transparency.