ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  I.A. NO. 89454 OF 2021  IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989 ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS          ...PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) AND IN THE MATTER OF  MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN AND ANOTHER      …APPLICANT(S) WITH I.A. NO. 89450 OF 2021  I.A. NO. 88976 OF 2021 I.A. No. 249 of 2009 I.A. NO. 44132 OF 2022 IN I.A. NO. 89450 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989 O R D E R B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 has been filed by two judicial officers   in   the   cadre  of   Delhi  Judicial   Service   (hereinafter 1 referred to as “DJS”) namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and   Dr.   Shirish   Aggarwal,   for   modification   of   the   orders st 1 th 2 dated 21  March 2002  and 20  April 2010  passed by this Court in the present writ petition.   I.A. No. 89450 of 2021 has   been   filed   by   the   same   judicial   officers   seeking permission   to   participate   in   the   Limited   Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “LDCE”) initiated by the High Court of Delhi through its letter No. 38­ th 49/Exam.Cell/DHJSCL   Exam/2021   dated   15   July   2021, for   promotion   to   the   Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service (hereinafter referred to as “DHJS”) District Judge Cadre and to consider the candidature of the judicial officers­applicants on   merits,   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the   application   for modification.   I.A. No. 44132 of 2022 in I.A. No.89450 of 2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers praying for a direction to the High Court of Delhi to identify two seats of LDCE quota of DHJS from the roster under Rule 7(2) of the Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service   Rules,   1970   (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) and to reserve them for the judicial officers­applicants.   I.A. No.88976 of 2021 has also 1 (2002) 4 SCC 247 2 (2010) 15 SCC 170 2 been   filed   by   the   same   judicial   officers   praying   for   their impleadment as co­petitioners in the present writ petition.   2. I.A. No.249 of 2009 has been filed by the High Court of Delhi praying for reducing the minimum qualifying service to 7 years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25% quota of LDCE. 3. We   have   heard   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   judicial   officers­ applicants,   Shri   A.D.N.   Rao,   learned   Senior   Counsel appearing   on  behalf   of   the  High  Court  of   Delhi  and   Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing as amicus curiae. 4. The   present   writ   petition   pertains   to   the   working conditions   of   the   members   of   subordinate   judiciary throughout   the   country.     This   Court   has   issued   various directions   from   time   to   time.     Pursuant   to   the   directions issued by this Court, the then Ministry of Law, Justice and Company   Affairs   (Department   of   Justice),   Government   of India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission (also   known   as   “Shetty   Commission”)   under   the 3 Chairmanship   of   Mr.   Justice   K.J.   Shetty   vide   Resolution st dated 21   March 1996.   The Shetty Commission, after due th deliberation, submitted its report on 11   November 1991. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission came to be st considered by this Court in its order dated 21  March 2002, passed in the present writ petition.  It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in paragraph (27) of the said order, which read thus:

4

5 5. A   perusal   thereof   would   reveal   that   this   Court   has observed that there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. This Court was of the view that in this way, the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. This  Court,  therefore,  observed  that  to achieve   the  same, while the ratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by direct   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial   Service   is maintained, there should be two methods for appointment by promotion.   50% of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and the remaining 25% of posts in the service should be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than 5 years. This Court, accordingly, issued the following directions:

6 merit­cum­seniority   and   passing   a suitability test; ( ) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on b the   basis   of   merit   through   limited competitive  examination  of  Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying service; and ( c ) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible   advocates   on   the   basis   of   the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts. (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above   by   the   High   Courts   as   early   as possible.” 6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the High Court of Delhi amended Rule 7 of the said Rules vide Delhi nd Higher Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 dated 22 October 2008, which reads thus: “7.   Regular   recruitment.­   (1)   Recruitment   to   the posts in the cadre of District Judge at Entry Level shall be as under:­  (a) 50 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges   (Senior   Division),   having   a   minimum   ten years service in the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service, on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and passing a suitability test;  (b) 25 percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit   through   limited   competitive   examination   of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service; and  (c) 25 percent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the persons eligible as 7 per rule 7C on the basis of the written and viva voce test, conducted by the High Court.  (2) The first and second posts will go to category (a) (by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­ suitability),   the   third   post   will   go   to   category   (c) (direct recruitment from the Bar), and the fourth post will go to category (b) (by limited competitive examination) under this rule, and so on.  7A.   …… 7B.   Selection   for   promotion   by   holding   limited competitive examination:­ The High Court shall hold a   limited   written   competitive   examination   for promotion of member of the Delhi Judicial Service as per clause (b) of sub­rule (1) of rule 7 in the following manner:­  (i) Written Examination ­ 600 marks  (ii) Assessment of Record ­150 marks  (iii) Viva voce ­ 250 marks  Provided that the High Court may, in addition to the above   competitive   examination,   take   into consideration any of the materials as prescribed in rule 7A above.  Provided further that any officer having grading as 'C'   (Integrity   doubtful)   in   any   year,   shall   not   be eligible   to   appear   in   the   limited   competitive examination. 7C. ……..” In   the   meantime,   the   issue   with   regard   to   eligibility 7. requirement for recruitment to the posts in DHJS under 25% quota   by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   merit   through   LDCE 8 came up for discussion before the Full Court of the High th Court of Delhi in its meeting dated 5  September 2008.  In the said meeting, it was considered that a Civil Judge (Junior Division)   is   not   eligible   to   become   Civil   Judge   (Senior Division) until he completes 5 years qualifying service.  It was further discussed that under the said Rules, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) would be required to have a minimum of 10 years qualifying service to be considered even for the 25% quota through LDCE.   The Full Court of the High Court of Delhi was of the view that in order to make the quota of LDCE   an   effective   scheme   of   promotion   for   meritorious officers, it was appropriate that the eligibility requirement of 10   years   be   reduced   to   7   years   [(5   years   as   Civil   Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) under the 25% quota].  The High Court of Delhi was of the view that the same would also be in conformity with Article 233   (2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   the   eligibility conditions   for   direct   recruitment   from   the   Bar.     In   this background, I.A. No. 249 of 2009 came to be filed by the High Court of Delhi. 9 8. Various   I.As.   were   filed   in   the   present   writ   petition. Some of the I.As. came to be decided by this Court vide order th dated 20   April 2010.   It will be apposite to refer to the following paragraphs of the said order: “ 5.  In   some   of   the   States   sufficient   number   of candidates   are   not   available   for   being   promoted under   this   particular   category   as   a   Civil   Judge (Senior   Division)   in   the   normal   course   gets promotion   before   the   completion   of   period   of   5 years. As 25% quota is prescribed, a large number of vacancies remained unfilled and that is not good for the judicial administration in that State. 6.  Having regard to various strategies available, we are of the considered view that suitable amendment is   to   be   made   for   this   25%   quota   of   limited departmental competitive examination. We are also of   the   view,   with   the   past   experience,   that   it   is desirable that 25% quota be reduced to 10%. We feel so as the required result, which was sought to be achieved by this process could not be achieved, thus it calls for modification. 7.  Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the cadre   strength   of   District  Judges   be   filled   up   by limited departmental competitive examination with those candidates who have qualified service of five years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Every year vacancies are to be ascertained and the process of selection shall be taken care of by the High Courts. If any of the post is not filled up under 10% quota, the same shall be filled up by regular promotion. In some   of   the   High   Courts,   process   of   selection   of these 25% quota by holding limited departmental competitive   examination   is   in   progress,   such 10 process can be continued and the unfilled seats, if meritorious   candidates   are   available,   should   be filled up. But if for some reason the seats are not filled up, they may be filled up by regular promotion and  apply  the   usual  mode  of  promotion process. Thus we pass the following order. 8.  Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are to be filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division)   and   10%   seats   are   to   be   filled   up   by limited   departmental   competitive   examination.   If candidates are not available for 10% seats, or are not able to qualify in the examination then vacant posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in accordance with the Service Rules applicable. 9.  All the High Courts are hereby directed to take steps to see that existing Service Rules be amended positively with effect from 1­1­2011. If the Rules are not suitably amended, this order shall prevail and further   recruitment   from   1­1­2011   shall   be continued accordingly as directed by us. The time schedule   prescribed   in   the   order   dated   4­1­2007 (in  Malik Mazhar Sultan case  [ Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)  v.  U.P. Public Service Commission , (2008) 17 SCC 703 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 942] ) shall be strictly adhered   to   for   the   purpose   of   selection.   All   the vacancies are to be filled up in that particular year and   there   shall   not   be   any   carry   forward   of   the unfilled posts.” 9. It could thus be seen that this Court found that it was difficult   to   find   candidates   for   LDCE   for   the   25%   posts reserved for the said category and in many High Courts, the 11 said posts remained unfilled.  This Court, therefore, reduced the said 25% quota to 10%. 10. I.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi has been pending for more than a decade.  In the meantime, two judicial   officers­applicants   herein   have   filed   the   aforesaid I.As.  The first one being for modification of the orders of this st th Court dated 21  March 2002 and 20  April 2010. 11. It is not in dispute that in the High Court of Delhi, the nature of work to be performed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the same.  This is a peculiar situation prevailing in the High Court of Delhi where   except   for   the   difference   in   Pay   Scale,   there   is   no difference with regard to the powers to be exercised and the duties to be discharged by the said judges.  It is also not in dispute that the present ratio of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) is 80 : 20. The High Court of Delhi has already moved the Principal Secretary (LJ & LA), Government of NCT of Delhi for increase of quota of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 25% from 20% i.e. an increase 12 from 96 Civil Judges (Senior Division) to 121 Civil Judges (Senior Division), out of a total strength of 482. 12. It   is   the   grievance   of   the   said   two   judicial   officers­ applicants that on account of this peculiar situation, for 10% quota under the LDCE, there are no candidates available for promotion through merit.  It is their further grievance that in ordinary course, a person would get promoted even to DHJS in 10 years.  In this premise, the judicial officers­applicants st pray for modification of the orders dated 21   March 2002 th and 20  April 2010 passed by this Court in the present writ petition so as to do away with the requirement of 5 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and modify the same with the requirement of 10 years total qualifying service as Civil Judge. 13. This position is not disputed by the High Court of Delhi. On the contrary, it is the prayer made by the High Court of Delhi that the order be modified and the requirement of 10 years   minimum   qualifying   service   be   reduced   to   7   years minimum qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior 13 Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) under the 25% quota]. 14. The very purpose for providing the channel of promotion through LDCE was to provide an incentive to the officers amongst   the   relatively   junior   officers   to   improve   and   to compete   with   each   other   so   as   to   excel   and   get   quicker promotion.   In the peculiar situation prevailing in the High Court   of   Delhi,   the   very   purpose   is   frustrated.     We   are, therefore, of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and   circumstances,   both   I.A.   No.249   of   2009   and   I.A. No.89454 of 2021 deserve to be allowed.   15. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi has fairly stated that the High Court of Delhi, on its own, has reserved two seats for the present judicial   officers­applicants   so   that   their   claims   are   not defeated by passage of time or by delay in holding of the examination. 16. In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no orders are necessary to be passed in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021, I.A. 14 No.44132 of 2022 in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021 and I.A. No.88976 of 2021. In the result, I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 filed by the judicial 17. officers­applicants and   I.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi are allowed in the following terms: st (i) Paragraph 28 (1) (b) of the order dated 21  March 2002   passed   by   this   Court,   is   modified   and substituted as under: “ 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having 7   years   qualifying   service   [(5   years   as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division)   or   10 years   qualifying   service   as   Civil   Judge .” (Junior Division) th (ii) Similarly, in the order dated 20  April 2010 passed by this Court, the direction in paragraph (7), i.e., “ Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the cadre   strength   of   District   Judges   be   filled   up   by limited departmental competitive examination with those candidates who have qualified service of five 15 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) ”, is modified and substituted as under: “ Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled   up   by   Limited   Departmental Competitive   Examination   with   those candidates who have qualified service of 7  years  [(5   years  as  Civil   Judge  (Junior Division)   and   2   years   as   Civil   Judge (Senior   Division)   or   10   years   qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).” 18. It   is   needless   to   state   that   since   the   aforesaid modifications   are   being   directed   in   the   peculiar   facts   and circumstances pertaining to the DHJS, the said modifications shall apply only insofar as the DHJS is concerned.  ……..….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …….........................J.        [B.R. GAVAI] ……..….......................J. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE] NEW DELHI; APRIL 19, 2022. 16