Supreme Court settles seniority of Munsiffs: Manoj Parihar vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2022) INSC 578 (27 June 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 June 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 578
Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Can the principle of reservation be extended to determine seniority among candidates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law dispute concerning the seniority of Munsiffs in Jammu & Kashmir. The core issue revolved around whether the inter-se seniority of Munsiffs should be determined based on roster points or on the merit they secured in the selection process. This judgment clarifies the position that merit, not roster points, should determine seniority in direct recruitment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the seniority of Munsiffs appointed in 2003 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (now Union Territory). The respondents, who were higher in the merit list of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examinations 2002, were placed lower in the gradation list. This was because the gradation list was prepared by applying the roster for direct recruitment as provided under Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005. This led to the reserved category petitioners displacing the general category respondents in the gradation list. The respondents then filed a writ petition seeking to quash the gradation list and for a direction to prepare the gradation list based on merit.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially ruled in favor of the original writ applicants, stating that the seniority list should be based on merit and not roster points. The High Court quashed the gradation list of 01.06.2010, directing the authorities to re-frame the seniority list based on merit. The High Court also directed that candidates who could not gain the requisite experience for appearing in the limited competitive examination due to the faulty gradation list would be held eligible to take such an examination if another Civil Judge in the same post but lower in the reframed seniority list was eligible to take such an examination.

The petitioners, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, challenged it before the Supreme Court. In the first round of litigation, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the issue of whether seniority for the gradation list can be based on roster points. Upon rehearing the matter, the High Court again ruled that seniority should be based on merit, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005, and the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967. The petitioners argued that the High Court should have followed the practice of fixing seniority based on roster points as per the Full Court Resolution dated 04.12.1994 and the Reservation Rules of 1994. The High Court, however, relied on the principle that seniority in direct recruitment should be based on merit, as established by the Supreme Court in various cases.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005: This rule provides for the application of roster for direct recruitment.
• Rule 42 of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967: This rule pertains to the appointments of the selected officers.
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 111 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir: This is pari materia with Article 235 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these rules and constitutional provisions forms the core of the judgment.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the High Court erred in holding that seniority should be based only on merit and not on roster points.
• They contended that the High Court should have evolved a fair and just principle, especially since the Recruitment Rules of 1967 are silent on the procedure for promotion of Munsiffs to Sub-Judges and determination of their inter-se seniority.
• The petitioners highlighted that the High Court, on its administrative side, had decided in its Full Court Resolution dated 04.12.1994 to adopt the Reservation Rules 1994 for fixing inter-se seniority, a practice consistently followed between 1995 and 2003.
• They emphasized that neither the petitioners nor the respondents had challenged the Reservation Rules 1994 or the Full Court Resolution dated 04.12.1994.
• The petitioners argued that the High Court erred in applying the Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005, which were notified on 21.10.2005, for fixing the inter-se seniority of appointees of the year 2003. They stated that these rules do not have retrospective operation. They cited the proviso to Rule 37, which states that the Rules shall not apply to vacancies for which advertisements were issued or selection processes were initiated before the Rules came into force.
• The petitioners argued that they would suffer if seniority is fixed based on merit, as many would have no chance of further promotion.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in holding that seniority should be fixed based on merit determined by the Public Service Commission, not on roster points.
• They contended that the law in this regard is well-settled and is no longer res integra.
• The respondents emphasized that the roster system is only for ensuring the quantum of reservation and has nothing to do with inter-se seniority.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the inter-se seniority of the Munsiffs appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission should be fixed/determined on the basis of the roster points or in terms of the order of their inter-se merit at the time of their selection?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604* to reiterate that seniority cannot be fixed based on roster points. The Court emphasized that the decision in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana, [(1995) 5 SCC 625]* which held that roster points can determine seniority, was not a good law.
• The Court explained that R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745* clarified that the roster is to operate only till the quota provided is reached, and not thereafter.
• The Court also cited Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209*, to emphasize that roster points are not intended to determine seniority between general and reserved candidates.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that in direct recruitment, seniority should be determined by merit and not by roster points. The Court emphasized that the roster system is meant only to ensure that the quantum of reservation is met and not for determining inter-se seniority. The Court also noted that the appointments were made after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, which clarified the legal position on this matter.

The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the 2003 appointees should be treated differently, stating that the principle of law as explained in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra) should be applied to all. The Court also considered the fact that the appointments were made after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra).

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process. It has nothing to do with the inter­se seniority among those recruited.”

“The inter­se merit list of the selected candidates can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written test, objective test, viva­voce and/or other parameters as may have been prescribed keeping in view the special requirement of service.”

“Seniority is, thus, not to be fixed in terms of the roster points. If that is done, the rule of affirmative action would be extended which would strictly not be in consonance of the constitutional schemes.”

Key Takeaways

• Seniority in direct recruitment should be determined by merit and not by roster points.
• The roster system is only for ensuring the quantum of reservation is met and not for determining inter-se seniority.
• The principle of law established in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, has retrospective effect.
• The decision has implications for all appointments made after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra).

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than dismissing the petition.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in direct recruitment, seniority should be determined by merit and not by roster points. This judgment reaffirms the principles laid down in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, (2003) 5 SCC 604, and clarifies that the roster system is only for ensuring the quantum of reservation and not for determining inter-se seniority. This case also clarifies that the law declared by the Supreme Court has retrospective effect unless specifically stated otherwise, thus overruling the practice of fixing seniority based on roster points as followed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s decision that the inter-se seniority of Munsiffs should be determined based on merit and not on roster points. The Court reiterated that the roster system is only for ensuring the quantum of reservation and has nothing to do with the inter-se seniority of the appointees. The judgment reinforces the principle that merit should be the basis for determining seniority in direct recruitment.