The Punjab & Haryana High Court has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against its own judgment in a case relating to seniority of judges in Punjab superior judicial service..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer, which issued notice in the case while also ordering a status quo..A slew of Senior Advocates appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran along with advocate Ashok Mathur appeared for the High Court while Senior Advocates KV Viswanathan and Dushyant Dave appeared for individual judges who are aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court. Senior Advocate V Giri along with advocate TVS Raghavendra Sreyas appeared on caveat for certain respondent judges..The dispute relates to Rule 7 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007, which provides for the method of appointment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service..Rule 7 provides for two sources of appointment namely through promotion and by direct recruitment. The promotion, which is one of the sources of appointment has been further divided into two categories viz. (i) promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority accounting for 50 percent [Rule 7(3)(a)] and (ii) 25 percent promotion on the basis of Limited Departmental competitive examination among the Civil Judges(Senior Division) having five years of qualifying service [Rule 7(3)(b)]..Rule 7(3)(c) provides for direct recruitment from the Bar..The major issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the quotas under Rules 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) can be clubbed together and considered as a single source..The cadre strength in the Superior Judicial Services in Punjab in October 2007 was 107. Out of 107 posts, 25 percent posts were meant for direct recruits i.e. 27 posts. The remaining 75 percent were meant for the promotees quota i.e. 80 posts (50 percent by promotion and 25 percent by accelerated promotion)..In February 2008, there were 58 promotee officers working as ADJs. Taking the two quotas as a single source, the High Court calculated that as against 80 posts meant for the promotees quota, only 58 promotee officers were working as ADJs. After adjusting the above said officers in the cadre of the Superior Judicial Service under old rules, 22 posts (15 posts in 50% and 7 posts in 25%) were still available in the promotee quota i.e. Rules 7(3) (a) and 7(3) (b)..As 22 posts were available under Rule 7(3) (a) and 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules, the Governor of Punjab on the recommendations of the petitioner-High Court, promoted 15 officers on regular basis to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge under Rule 7(3) (a). Another 7 officers were promoted under Rule 7 (3) (b) of 2007 Rules..The petitioners in the High Court were those judicial officers, who were appointed by way of direct recruitment quota under Rule 7(3)(c). They challenged the Seniority list prepared by the High Court with respect to the 107 posts..The High Court decided the case against the 15 promotee officers under Rule 7(3)(a) holding that the quota under Rule 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) are different and independent sources and cannot be clubbed together and considered as a single source. Hence, the quota under 7(3)(a) is 53 and not 80 and anybody promoted in excess of the strength of 53 would be considered as ad-hoc appointment..It held the following:.“The calculation was made taking total 80 posts (53+27) in promotion quota ignoring the fact that there were two different sources even in the promotion quota and both were independent. The criteria and sources for promotion were different. Considering that out of total 80 posts coming to the quotas provided in Rules 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) of the 2007 Punjab Rules and the actual working strength 58 [recruited in terms of quota as provided in Rule 7(3)(a) only], balance 22 vacancies were divided in the ratio of 50% and 25% to justify promotion of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) in excess of the quota meant for them. Hon’ble the Supreme Court no where opined that while considering the recruitment/ promotion from two different quotas, the posts were to be clubbed together or the quotas have to be calculated on vacancies. Rather, it was clearly held that quotas are post based.”.It therefore, held that the promotion of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) go beyond the quota and they will not get the benefit of seniority..This has been challenged by the High Court and the promotees under Rule 7(3)(a)..In the appeal before Supreme Court, the appellants have submitted that the unfilled posts under Rule 7(3)(b) meant for out of turn promotion cannot go or be diverted towards the direct recruitment under Rule 7(3)(c). It is their contention that the same has to be diverted towards promotions under Rule 7(3)(a). In the SLP filed through advocate-on-record Ashok Mathur, the High Court has submitted that,.“Thus, once the posts which remain unfilled under Rule 7(3) (b) cannot go to direct recruitment, the same have to be diverted to the regular promotion under Rule 7 (3) (a) of 2007 Rules. This is because of the reason that an officer who is eligible for promotion under Rule 7(3) (a) of 2007 Rules is bound to be eligible under Rule 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules and an officer eligible for promotion under Rule 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules would certainly be eligible under Rule 7(3) (a) of 2007 Rules though his turn for promotion may or may not come as per seniority.” .Hence, it is the High Court’s submission that the promotion of the petitioners under Rule 7(3)(a) was within the quota meant for regular promotees..The appellants have also challenged the anit-dated promotions given to the candidates promoted under Rules 7(3)(b)..“The out of turn promotee officers promoted on 14.08.2008 and subsequently issued transfer and postings orders on 22.10.2008 cannot be given anti-dated promotions which would relate to an imaginary date thereby making them seniors to the officers appointed through regular promotees quota [Rule 7(3) (a)] although who were though senior to them in the original cadre of the Civil Judges. Besides, the officers promoted under Rule 7(3) (a) in February, 2008 were not permitted to compete for accelerated promotion. Thus, they cannot be relegated lower in seniority to officers promoted by accelerated promotion who were much junior to them in the PCS(J) cadre without letting them compete with them”, the petition states..The Court after hearing the Senior Counsel for a few minutes issued notice to the respondents. The Court also ordered status quo in the matter and will hear the parties on the interim prayer for stay of High Court judgment on May 3.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against its own judgment in a case relating to seniority of judges in Punjab superior judicial service..The matter was heard today by a Bench of Justices Jasti Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer, which issued notice in the case while also ordering a status quo..A slew of Senior Advocates appeared for the appellants. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran along with advocate Ashok Mathur appeared for the High Court while Senior Advocates KV Viswanathan and Dushyant Dave appeared for individual judges who are aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court. Senior Advocate V Giri along with advocate TVS Raghavendra Sreyas appeared on caveat for certain respondent judges..The dispute relates to Rule 7 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007, which provides for the method of appointment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service..Rule 7 provides for two sources of appointment namely through promotion and by direct recruitment. The promotion, which is one of the sources of appointment has been further divided into two categories viz. (i) promotion on the basis of merit-cum-seniority accounting for 50 percent [Rule 7(3)(a)] and (ii) 25 percent promotion on the basis of Limited Departmental competitive examination among the Civil Judges(Senior Division) having five years of qualifying service [Rule 7(3)(b)]..Rule 7(3)(c) provides for direct recruitment from the Bar..The major issue for consideration before the High Court was whether the quotas under Rules 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) can be clubbed together and considered as a single source..The cadre strength in the Superior Judicial Services in Punjab in October 2007 was 107. Out of 107 posts, 25 percent posts were meant for direct recruits i.e. 27 posts. The remaining 75 percent were meant for the promotees quota i.e. 80 posts (50 percent by promotion and 25 percent by accelerated promotion)..In February 2008, there were 58 promotee officers working as ADJs. Taking the two quotas as a single source, the High Court calculated that as against 80 posts meant for the promotees quota, only 58 promotee officers were working as ADJs. After adjusting the above said officers in the cadre of the Superior Judicial Service under old rules, 22 posts (15 posts in 50% and 7 posts in 25%) were still available in the promotee quota i.e. Rules 7(3) (a) and 7(3) (b)..As 22 posts were available under Rule 7(3) (a) and 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules, the Governor of Punjab on the recommendations of the petitioner-High Court, promoted 15 officers on regular basis to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge under Rule 7(3) (a). Another 7 officers were promoted under Rule 7 (3) (b) of 2007 Rules..The petitioners in the High Court were those judicial officers, who were appointed by way of direct recruitment quota under Rule 7(3)(c). They challenged the Seniority list prepared by the High Court with respect to the 107 posts..The High Court decided the case against the 15 promotee officers under Rule 7(3)(a) holding that the quota under Rule 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) are different and independent sources and cannot be clubbed together and considered as a single source. Hence, the quota under 7(3)(a) is 53 and not 80 and anybody promoted in excess of the strength of 53 would be considered as ad-hoc appointment..It held the following:.“The calculation was made taking total 80 posts (53+27) in promotion quota ignoring the fact that there were two different sources even in the promotion quota and both were independent. The criteria and sources for promotion were different. Considering that out of total 80 posts coming to the quotas provided in Rules 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) of the 2007 Punjab Rules and the actual working strength 58 [recruited in terms of quota as provided in Rule 7(3)(a) only], balance 22 vacancies were divided in the ratio of 50% and 25% to justify promotion of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) in excess of the quota meant for them. Hon’ble the Supreme Court no where opined that while considering the recruitment/ promotion from two different quotas, the posts were to be clubbed together or the quotas have to be calculated on vacancies. Rather, it was clearly held that quotas are post based.”.It therefore, held that the promotion of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) go beyond the quota and they will not get the benefit of seniority..This has been challenged by the High Court and the promotees under Rule 7(3)(a)..In the appeal before Supreme Court, the appellants have submitted that the unfilled posts under Rule 7(3)(b) meant for out of turn promotion cannot go or be diverted towards the direct recruitment under Rule 7(3)(c). It is their contention that the same has to be diverted towards promotions under Rule 7(3)(a). In the SLP filed through advocate-on-record Ashok Mathur, the High Court has submitted that,.“Thus, once the posts which remain unfilled under Rule 7(3) (b) cannot go to direct recruitment, the same have to be diverted to the regular promotion under Rule 7 (3) (a) of 2007 Rules. This is because of the reason that an officer who is eligible for promotion under Rule 7(3) (a) of 2007 Rules is bound to be eligible under Rule 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules and an officer eligible for promotion under Rule 7(3) (b) of 2007 Rules would certainly be eligible under Rule 7(3) (a) of 2007 Rules though his turn for promotion may or may not come as per seniority.” .Hence, it is the High Court’s submission that the promotion of the petitioners under Rule 7(3)(a) was within the quota meant for regular promotees..The appellants have also challenged the anit-dated promotions given to the candidates promoted under Rules 7(3)(b)..“The out of turn promotee officers promoted on 14.08.2008 and subsequently issued transfer and postings orders on 22.10.2008 cannot be given anti-dated promotions which would relate to an imaginary date thereby making them seniors to the officers appointed through regular promotees quota [Rule 7(3) (a)] although who were though senior to them in the original cadre of the Civil Judges. Besides, the officers promoted under Rule 7(3) (a) in February, 2008 were not permitted to compete for accelerated promotion. Thus, they cannot be relegated lower in seniority to officers promoted by accelerated promotion who were much junior to them in the PCS(J) cadre without letting them compete with them”, the petition states..The Court after hearing the Senior Counsel for a few minutes issued notice to the respondents. The Court also ordered status quo in the matter and will hear the parties on the interim prayer for stay of High Court judgment on May 3.