Roster, and not date of joining, to determine inter se seniority of Judicial officers, SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the roster, and not the date of joining, would determine the inter se seniority of Punjab Superior Judicial Officers..The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan recast the final seniority list based on its findings..In this case, the list drawn for determining the seniority of judicial officers in the state was challenged. The list for the administrative side of the High Court was altered on account of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court..The Bench saw it fit to draw out a final list of seniority instead of remitting the responsibility to the High Court, considering the amount of time that has lapsed. The Judgment notes,.“The enormous responsibility which is shouldered by subordinate judiciary demands respectable conditions of service and fulfillment of the due aspirations and expectations of the officers manning the judicial system. The seniority in service plays a very important and vital role in service career of an incumbent.” .Facts of the case:.The seniority list was fixed for officers absorbed in the year 2008, based on the cadre strength as on that date. The same was challenged by those promotees who were direct recruits or were ‘out of turn’ promotees whose main argument was that the ceiling of 50% while making promotions was breached..The seniority of Punjab Superior Judicial Officers was to be fixed in three streams, which was 50% quota for merit and seniority basis, 25% for direct recruits and 25% for ‘out of turn’ promotees upon clearing competitive exams..The High Court had held that the promotions made in 2008 were in excess of the quota, and seniority would be made available to those promotees as and when the post in their cadre became available..This decision led to several officers losing out on their seniority, prompting them to assail it before the Supreme Court through the administrative side of the Punjab and Haryana High Court..Questions before the Court and the Verdict:.The Court identified that the main issues in this case are whether the promotees who took their posts in February 2008 were ad hoc in nature, in excess of their quota, and needed to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list..It was held that the cadre strengths before and after the amendment to the rules has to be treated differently. The new set of rules brought into place in 2007 and their implementation ought to be done in a away so as to not defeat any existing right, the Bench observed..The Court said that while allocating posts to be filled by different streams, the cadre strength, officers of the particular stream in position, and the quota of that stream have to be kept in mind. The vacancies arising in a particular year cannot mechanically be divided..“This Court observed that the least amount of litigation in the country is there where quota system in recruitment exists and where a roster system is followed”, the judgment reads..Additionally, the Court also considered the questions of whether appointments made to the Superior Judicial Services are to be made on the basis of a roster and whether the same roster system would also determine the seniority inter se..The Bench answered this question in the affirmative, stating that seniority inter se will be determined on the basis of roster, given that if the seniority was to be fixed on the basis of date of joining of a particular stream, it would lead to uncertainty..Concluding the findings, the Court held that the roster would be applicable to determine seniority, the fifteen promotees who were held to be in excess of their quota by the High Court, cannot be said to be ad-hoc, and cannot be placed at the bottom of seniority on that basis..The judgment also categorically states that the Rules brought in 2007 to implement the directions of Court cannot be interpreted in a way that violates the Court’s directions..Effectively the Court, in its judgment, also set out the final seniority list based on the findings of this judgment given that a period of three years had already lapsed since the since the setting out of tentative seniority list..Read Judgment: