G. R. Luthra Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
& Ors [1979] INSC 153 (22 August 1979)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
DESAI, D.A.
CITATION: 1979 AIR 1900 1980 SCR (1) 313 1979
SCC (4) 406
ACT:
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules,
1970-Petitioner throughout senior to respondent-Both were allotted to different
States on division of State-Respondent got proforma promotion in State
Cadre-Petitioner given the benefit of "next below rule" and promoted
later in his State Cadre-Respondent if could claim seniority over petitioner.
HEADNOTE:
In the competitive examination for
recruitment to Punjab State Judicial Service, conducted in 1950 by the
undivided State of Punjab, the petitioner and respondent no.
3 were placed at s. nos. 4 and 13 in the
merit list. On August 7, 1950 the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Judge
against a permanent post while the respondent was appointed as Sub-Judge
against a temporary post on November 23. 1950.
Till the formation of the State of Delhi,
judicial officers of Punjab were posted as judicial officers in Delhi. Both the
petitioner and the respondent were posted as Sub-Judges in Delhi. Consequent
upon the division of the State of Punjab into Punjab and Haryana the petitioner
was allotted to Haryana while the respondent was retained in Punjab. But even
thereafter they continued as Senior Sub- Judges in Delhi. The Chief Justice of
Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Chief Justice of the newly formed Delhi
High Court decided that in the judicial service to be constituted for Delhi the
petitioner would rank senior to the respondent (the petitioner being placed at
the fourth place and the respondent at sixth place in the list of seniority).
In May, 1967 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi;
the respondent was appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi in February,
1968. In the meantime the respondent was given a proforma promotion in the
State of Punjab with effect from June 24, 1967 and giving the benefit of
"next below rule" the petitioner was promoted as Additional District
and Sessions Judge with effect from July 28, 1967. The petitioner was confirmed
as District and Sessions Judge in his parent cadre on October 2, 1970, while
the respondent was appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Delhi
on June 5, 1968 and continued in that post till May, 1971.
When the Delhi Higher Judicial Service was
formed in 1970 the petitioner was placed at s. no. 7 and the respondent at s.
no. 8 in the list of judicial officers.
The respondent's representation claiming
seniority over the petitioner was accepted by the Delhi High Court on the
ground that in view of Rule 6(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules
1970 as interpreted by this Court in G. R. Luthra v. Lt. Governor, Delhi (AIR
1974 SC 1908) the respondent was senior to the petitioner.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution the petitioner impugned the order of the Lt. Governor passed on
the recommendation of the High Court treating him to be junior to respondent
no. 3.
314 Allowing the petition,
HELD: 1. The petitioner was senior to the
respondent and was rightly placed above the respondent in the initial
constitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in May 1971 and the order of
the Lt. Governor was, therefore, erroneous. [322 D-E]
2. Rule 6(3) of the Rules provides that the
seniority of candidates appointed at the initial constitution shall be in
accordance with the length of service rendered by them in the cadres to which
they belonged at the time of their initial recruitment to the service provided
that the inter se seniority as already fixed in such cadres shall not be
altered. The petitioner was throughout treated as senior to the respondent and
even in the initial recruitment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service he was shown
as senior to the respondent. Since the inter se seniority had been fixed
initially the petitioner was senior to the respondent and this position cannot
be altered. [320 B-C]
3. Although the respondent was promoted to a
higher post before the petitioner was promoted in the respective parent State
cadres, since the appointment of the petitioner was made subject to the next
below rule, his seniority over the respondent was fully protected. If the
respondent was to be given seniority over the petitioner the question of giving
benefit of the next below rule to the petitioner would not have arisen.
Therefore, merely because the respondent got a proforma promotion and was
temporarily promoted six months before the petitioner would not make him senior
to the petitioner. [317 E-G]
4. Even r. 6(1) (a) envisages that for
initial recruitment to the service appointments were to be made from District
Judges and Additional District Judges functioning as such in the Union
Territory of Delhi on deputation from other States. On the date of formation of
the service the respondent was not functioning either as District Judge or as
Additional District Judge but was on deputation with the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal. [322 A-B]
5. The case of G. R. Luthra v. Lt. Governor Delhi,
was clearly distinguishable in that the respondent was not a party to that case
and his case did not fall for consideration by the Court. It was laid down in
that case that length of service rendered by a candidate during the period when
he was rendering service either as District Judge or Additional District Judge
against a permanent or a temporary post was the criterion for the determination
of seniority under the Rules. [320 G] In the instant case although the
petitioner and respondent were drawn from different sources and from different
States at the time of the initial formation of the cadre the former was shown
above the respondent and, therefore, the respondent could not claim seniority
over the petitioner. [321 E] G. R. Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi v.
Lt.
Governor, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1908
distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 402
of 1977.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
(Dr.) L. M. Singhvi, Raj Punjvani and G. S.
Chatterjee for the Petitioner.
315 Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. Genl. E. C.
Agarwala and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent No. 2 (Delhi High Court).
A. K. Sen, U. R. Lalit, P. H. Parekh, C. B.
Singh, M. Mudgal and B. L. Verma for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.-This writ petition has had a chequered career and involves a
competition regarding seniority between the petitioner G. R. Luthra and
Respondent No. 3 D.
R. Khanna who were simultaneously recruited
as members of the Punjab Judicial Service. The case appears to have travelled
through various stages both in the High Court and in this Court on different
aspects. After hearing counsel for the parties in the view that we propose to
take in this petition and also because respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit
that he would not press this Court for giving any decision regarding his
seniority over the petitioner if the submission of respondent No. 3 regarding
his appointment under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service is decided against him,
it is not necessary for us to give any finding on the scope and ambit of Rule
6(3) of the Rules.
In view of these facts the controversy in
this case has been very much narrowed down and the point for decision falls
within a very narrow compass. In order however to understand the question
involved, it may be necessary to give a short history and a brief resume of the
manner in which the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed and their
vertical mobility in the hierarchy through which they had moved up.
To begin with, both the petitioner and
respondent No. 3 competed for entrance to the State Judicial Service of the
undivided Punjab. The petitioner Luthra was appointed as far back as 7th
August, 1950 having obtained 4th position in the competitive examination and
was appointed as Sub-Judge against a permanent post. Respondent No. 3 had also
taken the same competitive examination but obtained a lower position (13th) and
was appointed as Sub-Judge against a temporary post. Thus, from inception three
important facts are established:
1. That the petitioner had obtained a higher
position in the competitive examination held for entrance to the State Judicial
Service whereas respondent No. 3 had obtained a lower position. This is
important because under the Rules and the conventions the seniority of new
recruits is normally governed by the place which they occupy in the competitive
examination.
2. The petitioner Luthra was appointed on the
7th August, 1950 whereas respondent No. 3 D. R. Khanna was appointed on the 23rd
November, 1950 i.e.
about 3 1/2 months later. Thus, even
regarding the time of appointment, the petitioner entered the service prior to
respondent No. 3 both having been appointed to the same service and having been
recruited through the same competitive examination.
3. That while the petitioner Luthra was
appointed against a permanent vacancy respondent No. 3 was appointed in the
State Judicial Service only against a temporary post. This was also an
important factor which has to be taken into consideration in order to determine
the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent No. 3.
Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were
thus appointed as members of the Punjab Judicial Service in the undivided
Punjab. So far as Delhi was concerned before the birth of the Haryana State it
used to be a Judicial District of Punjab. Unfortunately, the services of the
respondent No.
3 remained terminated due to medical
unfitness between 13th March, 1952 to 23rd May, 1956. But this gap is of no
consequences because subsequently his medical unfitness was set aside in appeal
and respondent No. 3 was reinstated with effect from the date of his
appointment, namely, 23rd November, 1950.
On the 9th March, 1963 the petitioner Luthra
was posted at Delhi as Sub-Judge. On 1st November, 1966 by virtue of
re-organisation of Punjab, Punjab and Haryana became two separate States and
some areas were transferred to Himachal Pradesh. As a result of the aforesaid
reorganisation the services of the petitioner Luthra were allocated to the
State of Haryana and that of respondent No. 3 Khanna to Punjab, but both the
officers continued to be posted at Delhi and were Senior Sub-Judges. On the
same date, namely, 1st November, 1966 Delhi High Court was created and came
into existence. Shortly thereafter, on 5th November, 1966 in a meeting of the
Chief Justices of the Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts a list of
Judicial Officers to be absorbed in the Judicial Service to be constituted at
Delhi was finalised and in the list of the Lower Judicial Service which appears
at page 393 of the Paper Book the petitioner Luthra was placed at S. No. 4
whereas respondent No. 3 D. R. Khanna was placed at S. No. 6. Thus, the two
High Courts clearly decided that in the new Service the petitioner was to rank
senior to respondent No. 3. This decision was a logical corollary of the
history of the services of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, discussed
above. The proceedings of the meeting are contained 317 at pages 392-395 of the
Paper Book in which the Courts decided to allocate one District and Sessions
Judge for Delhi and 8 Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Higher
Judicial Service and 39 Sub-Judges in the Lower Judicial Service. Both the
petitioner and respondent No. 3 at that time fell in the third category. Thus,
even though the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had for a short while been
allocated to two different States, namely, one was allotted to Punjab and the
other to Haryana, but with the coming into existence of the Delhi High Court
both of them again joined the same service and their rank and seniority was
throughout maintained.
On 9th May, 1967 the petitioner Luthra was
appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi, Respondent No. 3 was appointed as
Assistant Sessions Judge on 21st February, 1968, but it appears that by a
letter dated 22nd March, 1971 written by the Registrar of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court addressed to the Accountant General, Punjab, Simla
respondent No. 3 was given proforma promotion with effect from 24th June, 1967.
The proforma promotion is related to vacancies in his parent State and has
nothing to do with vacancies or seniority where both were at the relevant time
serving. This letter is annexed as Annexure 2 appearing at pages 288-89 of the
Paper Book. The petitioner Luthra was however given benefit of the next below
rule as Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect from 28th July,
1967. This unfortunate episode seems to be the sheet anchor of the argument of
respondent No. 3 in claiming seniority over the petitioner. It is true that by
virtue of the letter referred to above respondent No. 3 was appointed as
Additional District and Sessions Judge prior to the petitioner but since this
appointment was made subject to the next below rule it is manifest that the
seniority of the petitioner over respondent No. 3 was fully protected otherwise
if in fact the respondent No. 3 was to be given seniority over the petitioner,
the question of giving benefit of the next below rule to the petitioner would not
have arisen. The letter referred to above was passed by the order of the Chief
Justice and the Judges of the High Court.
In these circumstances, therefore, merely
because respondent No. 3 got a proforma promotion and was temporarily appointed
as Additional District and Sessions Judge six months before the petitioner that
will not make him senior to the petitioner. This fact is borne out by another
circumstance.
The petitioner was also appointed as
Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25th November, 1967 and while both
the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were holding the same post at Delhi. The
petitioner was confirmed as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of
Haryana on 2nd October, 1970.
318 On the other hand, respondent No. 3 was
appointed as Addl. District & Sessions Judge Delhi on 5-6-1968 and
continued as Addl. District and Sessions Judge till 17-5-71. Respondent No. 3,
however, was confirmed as Sub Judge on 5-6-1968 but was confirmed as District
and Sessions Judge Delhi several years after.
On 27-8-1970 Delhi Higher Judicial Service
and Delhi Judicial Service Rules were framed by the Lt. Governor in
consultation with the Delhi High Court. On 22-3-1971 Shri Khanna respondent No.
3 was appointed as Member, Income Tax Tribunal at Jaipur. About two months
thereafter i.e. on 17- 5-1971 there was a regular notification initiating the
constitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with effect from 17-5-1971 by
which in the Higher Service the petitioner was put at S. No. 7 and respondent
No. 3 at S.
No. 8. This notification may be extracted
thus:- "In pursuance of the provisions of rule 6 of the Delhi Higher
Judicial Service Rules 1970 the Administrator of Delhi is pleased to appoint
substantively in consultation with the High Court, the following persons from
the States noted against each, to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service at its
initial constitution with effect from 17-5-71 and in order of seniority
indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------
Sl. Name of the Officer Post held at Present State to No. which belongs
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shri Rajinder Nath Registrar, Delhi High
Himachal A319 Aggarwal Court, New Delhi. Pradesh.
2. Shri Fauja Singh Gill Addl. District &
Punjab Sessions Judge, Delhi
3. Shri Mohinder Singh
Members(Punjab)Official Punjab Language (Legislative) Commission, Ministry of
Law, Government of India.
4. Shri Kashmir Singh Addl. District &
Sessi- Punjab ons Judge, Delhi.
5. Shri Om Nath Verma DO DO
6. Shri Jagmaner Das Jain DO DO
7. Shri Gulshan Rai Luthra DO Haryana
8. Shri Dev Raj Khanna DO Punjab
------------------------------------------------------------ 319 Thus, this
notification would show that whatever may have been the position prior to the
coming into force of the new Service, the petitioner was treated to be senior
to respondent No. 3. As we have already stated that both the petitioner and
respondent No. 3 were practically recruited through the same source and were
members of the same Service though for a short period the petitioner was
allotted to Haryana and respondent No. 3 to Punjab but that would not introduce
any break in the service of either of them or bring about a change in their
seniority. Unfortunately, however, it appears that the confusion was worse
confounded by a decision taken by the Delhi High Court on a representation
filed by respondent No. 3. It appears that after the final list under the Delhi
Higher Judicial Service was notified and approved respondent No. 3 filed a
representation on the 21st January, 1972 claiming seniority over the
petitioner. This representation appears to have been accepted by the High Court
on 10th June, 1976 which runs thus:
"I am desired to say that Shri D. R.
Khanna a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, at present on deputation
as Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal made a representation dated
the 25th January, 1972 (copy enclosed) requesting that for the reasons stated
therein he may be placed above Shri G. R. Luthra in the Gradation List of the
officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The comments of Shri Luthra on
the aforesaid representation of Shri Khanna were obtained. Subsequently, both
the officers filed counters, copy of each one of which is enclosed. Both Shri
Khanna and Shri Luthra were heard by a Committee of two Hon'ble Judges who
submitted a report which was considered on the Administrative Side by the Full
Court in its meeting held on 20th May, 1976 and it was decided that in view of
Rule 6(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as interpreted by
the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1908. Shri Khanna is senior to Shri
Luthra. I am directed to request that orders of the Administrator may be
obtained in this behalf and necessary amendment in Delhi Administration's
Notification No. 1(740)/76-Judl. dated the 15th May, 1971 be made".
Thus, the basis of the order of the High
Court was the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1970. Section 6(3) runs thus:- "6(3). The seniority of the
candidates appointed at the initial constitution shall be in accordance with
the length of 320 service rendered by them in the cadres to which they belong
at the time of their initial recruitment to the service provided that the
inter-se seniority as already fixed in such cadres shall not be altered".
A perusal of this rule would manifestly show
that the petitioner was treated as senior to respondent No. 3 throughout his
whole career and even in the initial recruitment by which the Delhi Higher
Judicial Service came into existence, the petitioner was shown senior to
respondent No. 3, and, therefore, on a plain reading of rule 6(3) there was no
merit in the representation of respondent No. 3 and according to the second
part of the rule since inter-se seniority had already been fixed initially, the
petitioner would be deemed to be senior to the respondent No. 3 and this
seniority could not be altered. With due respect to the Hon'ble Judges we feel
that the construction placed by the High Court on rule 6(3) was not correct.
The High Court appears to have relied on a decision of this Court in G. R.
Luthra, Additional District Judge, Delhi v. Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors.
which is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the
present case and in which the history of the services of the two officers had
not been placed or argued nor was respondent No. 3 a party to that petition
and, therefore, his case never came up for consideration before this Court.
Therefore, this Court had no occasion to consider the various aspects of the
question which ex-hypothesi, did not arise. The facts and circumstances under
which the petitioner's seniority was maintained by giving a proforma promotion
to respondent No.
3 and protecting the seniority of the
petitioner by concept of next below rule was also not brought to the notice of
the Court.
In fact, in the case of G. R. Luthra v. Lt.
Governor, Delhi & Ors. (supra) this Court clearly laid down that the
criterion for the determination of seniority under the Delhi Rules was the
length of service rendered by the candidates during the period when they were
rendering service either as District Judge or as Additional District and
Sessions Judge against permanent or temporary posts. From the notification
dated 19th May, 1971 which has been extracted above it would be seen that Mr.
Sidhu, Mr. Vohra and Mr. Jain over whom the petitioner Luthra was claiming
seniority were shown at S.
No. 4, 5 and 6, that is to say above the
petitioner Luthra.
This Court therefore obviously held that
length of service of these officers being more than the petitioner 321 Luthra,
the claim of the petitioner Luthra was wholly untenable. In this connection,
this Court observed as follows:- "Rule 6(4) of the Delhi Rules shows that
the respondents and the appellant were absorbed in the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service from the States of Punjab and Haryana. The length of service rendered
by them as Additional District and Sessions Judges is the criterion to fix the
seniority. The word 'cadre' includes both permanent and temporary posts. To
confine cadre to permanent posts under the Delhi Rules would be to render the
Rules totally unworkable and impracticable because at the time of initial
recruitment the persons came on deputation from States mostly in their
temporary capacity as Additional District and Sessions Judges.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the
respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain had been rightly treated as senior to the
appellant on the ground that the length of service rendered by the respondents
in the cadre of District and Additional District and Sessions Judges to which
they belonged at the time of initial recruitment is longer than that of the
appellant".
In the instant case also the petitioner and
respondent No. 3 have been drawn from different sources and different States
before they were absorbed in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service and it would
appear from the notification mentioned above that while the petitioner Luthra
was shown at S. No. 7, respondent No. 3 was placed at S. No. 8. There-fore, on
a parity of reasoning adopted by this Court in the case cited above the case of
respondent No. 3 claiming seniority over the petitioner Luthra cannot be
accepted. Thus, the High Court in recommending that respondent No. 3 should be
treated as senior to the petitioner Luthra acted against the express decision
of this Court cited above and that the order of the High Court, therefore, was
legally erroneous and if given effect it would have been violative of Article
16 of the Constitution.
Moreover, Rule 6(1) of the Delhi Judicial
Service Rules runs thus:- "6(1). For initial recruitment to the service,
the Administrator shall, in consultation with the High Court, appoint persons
to the service substantively from amongst the following:- (a) District Judges
and Additional District Judges functioning as such in the Union Territory of
Delhi on deputation from other States".
322 Clause (a) makes it absolutely clear that
persons to the Higher Service would be recruited only from those District and
Additional District Judges who were actually functioning in the Union Territory
of Delhi on deputation from other States. It is common ground that on this
crucial date respondent No. 3 was not functioning either as District Judge or
as Additional District Judge but was on deputation with the Income Tax
Tribunal. In view however of the affidavit given by the respondent No. 3 we
refrain from giving any finding as to whether or not respondent No. 3 was
validly appointed because respondent No. 3 had conceded in his affidavit that
he would not press his claim of seniority over the petitioner and, therefore,
we need not take into consideration the provisions of rule 6(1) (a) of the
Rules.
Thus, on an overall consideration of the various
aspects of the matter discussed above, we are satisfied that the petitioner
Luthra was senior to respondent No. 3 and was rightly placed above respondent
No. 3 in the initial constitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service by
virtue of the notification dated 19th May, 1971, and is, therefore, entitled to
such right as he may have and shall be deemed to be senior to respondent No. 3.
The order of the Lt. Governor (Respondent No. 1) based on the recommendation of
the High Court treating the petitioner to be junior to respondent No.
3 is legally erroneous and is quashed as by
making respondent No. 3 senior to the petitioner the right of the petitioner
under Article 16 is clearly violated.
The petition is accordingly allowed, but in
the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
P.B.R. Petition allowed.
Back
