HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH (SOLE PETITIONER IN ALL MATTERS) vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5518­5523 Of 2017 HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH     ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.        ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10185­10187/2018 (DIARY NO.32341) OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.10176 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.16772 OF 2017), CIVIL APPEAL NO.5513 OF 2017,  CIVIL APPEAL NO.5509 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5525 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5510 OF 2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO.5515­5517 OF 2017, AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.5528­5529 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. These   appeals   have   been   filed   challenging   the   judgment dated 03.03.2017 of Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing the Writ Petition No.1056 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2019.03.02 10:58:16 IST Reason: of 2016 and other connected writ petitions.  3. The questions which have arisen for determination in this 2 batch of appeals relate to inter se seniority dispute between three streams of Punjab Superior Judicial Service, i.e.,  (i)   the   officers   promoted   on   the   basis   of merit­cum­seniority under 50% quota (hereinafter referred to as “promotees”); (ii) the   direct   recruits   under   25%   quota   (hereinafter referred to as “direct recruits”); and (iii)officers   promoted   on   the   basis   of   limited departmental competitive examination under 25% quota (as it then   existed)   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “out   of   turn promotees”). 4. The members of Punjab Superior Judicial Service had filed writ petition in the High court challenging the seniority list dated   24.12.2007   issued   by   the   High   Court   determining   the inter   se   seniority   of   the   members   of   the   Punjab   Superior Judicial Service. 5. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court has been   questioned   by   Punjab   and   Haryana   High   Court   at Chandigarh, members of Punjab Superior Judicial Service who were direct recruits and Superior Judicial Officers who are promotees   under   50%   quota.   Civil   Appeals   on   behalf   of Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa  and others and Jitender Kaur are the appeals filed by direct recruits and other appeals are the 3 appeals filed by the promotee officers under 50% quota.  6. C.A.Nos.5518­5523   of   2017   filed   by   the   High   Court   are being treated as leading appeals, reference of pleadings of which   appeals   shall   be   sufficient   to   decide   this   batch   of appeals. Background Facts 7. The Higher Judicial Service of the State of Punjab was governed by a set of Rules, namely, Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8, as it existed initially, provided that of the total number of cadre­posts, two­third shall be manned by promotee officers and one­third by direct recruits.  8. Rule   12   dealt   with   seniority   which   provided   that   the seniority,   inter   se,   of   the   substantive   members   of   the Service, whether direct recruits or promotee officers, shall be determined with reference to the respective dates of their confirmation. On 31.12.1976 Rule 12 was amended providing that seniority,  inter se , of the members of the Service, shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in the Service irrespective of the date of confirmation.  9. On 28.01.1991, Rule 8(2) was amended providing that of the total number of cadre posts, three­fourth shall be manned by promotee Officers and one­fourth by direct recruits.  10. This Court in   All India Judges' Association and others 4 vs.   Union   of   India   and   others,   2002   (4)   SCC   247,   on 21.03.2002,   after   considering   Justice   Shetty   Commission's report had issued various directions regarding recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges. The   directions   were   issued   by   this   Court   directing   that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges shall be from  three streams i.e.: “(1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil   Judges   (Senior   Division)   on   the   basis   of principle   of   merit­cum­seniority   and   passing   a suitability test;  (b) 25 per cent 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   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. ” 11. This Court further directed that appropriate rules shall be   framed   by   the   High   Courts   as   early   as   possible   in compliance of the aforesaid directions. The Punjab Superior Judicial Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2004 were notified on 15.01.2004 in compliance of judgment of this Court in   All India   Judges'   Association   case   (supra) .   It   appears   that amendment made in Rules on 15.01.2004 did not fully serve the purpose nor fully complied with this Court's directions made 5 in   All India Judges' Association(supra),  hence, a new set of rules was framed, namely, the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which were published in the Gazette on 03.09.2007. The cadre strength of  Punjab Superior Judicial Service before 2007 comprised of 88 posts. The High Court on 14.10.2004 had made   10   promotions   as   per   unamended   Rules   on   10   vacancies which   were   existing   since   prior   to   amendment   of   Rules   on 15.01.2004. On 31.08.2007, total cadre strength was 89, which was   increased   to   107   as   on   11.10.2007.   The   process   for recruitment of direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c) of Rules, 2007   was   initiated   on   02.02.2008   with   the   publication   of advertisement. The promotions under 50% quota on the basis of merit­cum­seniority   was   affected   on   18.02.2008.   The competitive   test   for   limited   departmental   competitive examination   was   held   on   18.05.2008   for   which   process   was initiated on 23.04.2008 by issuance of letter via e­mail. Full Court   on   25.07.2008   approved   the   recommendations   both   for direct recruitment and out of turn promotion, by two separate letters i.e. letter No.628 dated 29.07.2008 the recommendation of direct recruitment and by letter No.629 dated 29.07.2008 recommendation   for   out   of   turn   promotion   were   sent   to   the Government. The appointment letters in reference to limited competitive examination were received earlier than those of 6 direct   recruits.   On   14.08.2008,   Governor   of   Punjab   issued Office Order whereby eight Officers were promoted under out of turn   quota,   posting   with   regard   to   whom   was   issued   on 22.10.2008.   The   Governor   of   Punjab   had   issued   letter   for direct   recruits   on   28.11.2008   with   regard   to   whom   posting order   dated   08.12.2008   was   issued.   Fifteen   Officers   were promoted under 50% quota, eight Officers were promoted under out of turn promotion quota 25%. Twelve direct recruits were appointed   vide   order   dated   08.12.2008.   The   process   of recruitment of all the three streams was thus completed in the same   year   and   Officers   of   the   three   streams     joined   their respective posts in the year 2008 itself although on different dates. The promotees got joining first followed by out of turn promotees and lastly by direct recruits. This Court in   All India   Judges   Association   and   Ors.   vs.   Union   of   India   and reduced the out of turn promotion Ors., 2010 (15) SCC 170,   quota   from   25%   to   10%   which   was   to   take   effect   from 01.01.2011. The High Court initiated the process of fixation of inter se seniority of the officers of two streams in the year   2014.   A   tentative   seniority   list   was   prepared   and circulated by the Registrar of the High Court on 25.09.2014 to the members of Superior Judicial Service. Various objections to   the   list   were   filed   including   the   objections   by   direct 7 recruits as well as officers promoted under the out of turn quota.   The   Judges'   Committee   submitted   a   report   after considering   the   objections   recommending   that   tentative seniority list determined does not require any modification or alteration and the same may be finalised. The report of the Committee   was   accepted   by   Full   Court   on   22.12.2015.   A notification dated 24.12.2015 was issued publishing the inter se   seniority   of   the   members   of   Punjab   Superior   Judicial Service, promoted, appointed, absorbed in the year 2008. From serial Nos.1 to 14 in the list were the promotee Officers, from serial Nos.15 and 16 were direct recruits, from serial Nos.17   to   24   were   promotee   officers   through   limited departmental   examination   and   from   serial   Nos.25   to   35   were direct recruits.  12. Writ Petition No.1056 of 2016, was filed by   Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa and two others praying for following reliefs: i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially  a  writ  in  the  nature of  certiorari  for quashing   the   impugned   Seniority   List   dated 24.12.2015 (Annexure P­1) issued by respondent No.2; ii)   To   issue   a   writ   of   Mandamus   or   any   other suitable   writ,   order   or   direction,   directing   the respondent   No.1   and   2   to   redraw   and   reframe seniority list by showing the petitioners over and above the respondent Nos.3 to 5; iii) To say the operation of the impugned seniority list 24.12.2015(P­1) and stay the further promotion of   the   respondents   in   furtherance   of   the   impugned 8 seniority list; iv) To any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court  deem  fit  and  proper  keeping  in  view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice; v) To dispense with the issuance of advance notices to the respondents; vi) Exempt the petitioner from filing the certified & typed copies for the Annexures; vii) Award costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 13. Writ Petition No.1209 of 2016 was filed by Jatinder Kaur, direct   recruit,   challenging   the   seniority   list   dated 24.12.2015. Similarly Writ Petition No.1057 of 2016 was filed by   Jatinder   Pal   Singh   Khurmi   and   others   challenging   the seniority list. Writ Petition No.2335 of 2016 was filed by Virinder Aggarwal & another,  who were out of turn promotees. They   also   challenged   the   seniority   list   dated   24.12.2015. Their   prayers   in   the   writ   petition   were   to   the   following effect: “i)   Issue   an   appropriate   writ,   order   or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Tentative   Seniority   List   dated   25.09.2014 (AnnexureP­1), the Report dated 11.08.2015 (Annexure P­4)   and   the   decision   of   the   Full   Court   dated 22.12.2015 (Annexure P­5) and consequently directing the official respondents to frame a fresh seniority list   of   the   Officers   belonging   to   the   Punjab Superior Judicial Service having been appointed in the year 2008 in accordance with law and specially 9 by implementing the roster and for the grant of all consequential   benefits   flowing   therefrom   viz. continuity of service, antedated promotions, arrears of pay, interest thereon etc.; ii)   issue   any   other   appropriate   writ,   order   or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper  in the peculiar facts and  circumstances  of the case; iii)   exempt   the   petitioners   from   service   of   the advance notices upon the respondents; iv)   exempting   the   petitioners   from   filing   the certified copies of the annexures; v)   costs   of   the   petition   be   awarded   to   the petitioner.” 14. Another Writ Petition No.1983 of 2016 was filed by Munish Singal   and   two   others   who   were   direct   recruits   challenging seniority   list   dated   24.12.2015.   In   the     writ   petitions affected   parties   were   impleaded.   The   High   Court   through Registrar filed written statement in Writ Petition No.1056 of 2016.   Promotees   also   filed   their   written   statement   in   Writ Petition   No.1056   of   2016.   The   Division   Bench   heard   the parties.   All   the   writ   petitions   were   decided   by   a   common judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment had noticed the submission of the parties, the report of the Committee. In paragraph 102 of the judgment the High Court has observed that the Committee had framed eight issues. The eight issues framed by the Committee as noticed in paragraph 102 are 10 as follows: "(1) Whether   the   promotions   dated   19.02.2008   made under   Rule   7(3)(a)   are   liable   to   be   termed   as irregular or 'ad­hoc', and if so, to what effect ? (2) Whether   the   posts   meant   for   the   'out­of­turn promotion'   under   Rule   7(3)(b)   which   remained unfilled as   no competitive examination took place from   the   year   2004   to   2008,   can   be   included   in 'promotion quota' under Rule 7(3)(a), and if not, to which quota such posts shall stand diverted ? (3) Whether promotions made on 19.2.2008 under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess to the 'promotion quota', and if   so,   what   is   the   effect   on   seniority   of   such excess promotions? (4) Whether promoted officers irrespective of Rule 7(3)(a) or (b) are entitled to the 'weightage' of their   service   rendered   in   PCS   (Judicial   Branch) towards   seniority   in   Superior   Judicial   Service   in view of second proviso to Rule 23 of 2007 Rules ? (5) Whether the direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c) could   be   assigned   seniority   from   the   date   their names   were   recommended   by   the   High   Court   fro appointment ? (6) Whether   officers   absorbed   from   Fast   Track Courts   are   liable   to   be   treated   as   'ex   gratia appointees', and if so, what is the effect in law and   what   would   be   their   'deemed   date   of appointment'? (7) Whether Roster (Appendix 'B') can be read into and applied to the Rule of seniority ? (8) Whether Mr. Arunvir Vashista is entitled to be absorbed as ADJ w.e.f. 24.6.2008 or he be placed at Sr.No.1 amongst the out­of­turn promotees in view of para 146(13) of the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal­II ?” 15. The   Division   Bench   further   noticed   that   in   the   writ petition   arguments   were   addressed   relating   to   Issue 11 Nos.1,2,3,5 and 7. The High Court held that promotees were in excess, hence, promotions made shall be treated in excess of quota   and   they   shall   take   seniority   on   the   date   post   is available in their quota. The High Court further held that the date of recommendation of direct recruits cannot be treated the date for the purpose of seniority. On applicability of roster   in   determination   of   seniority,   the   High   Court categorically   held   that   roster   shall   be   applicable   in determining the seniority as per Rules, 2007. The vacancies under   Rule   7(1)(b)   shall   shift   to   Rule   7(1)(a)   only   with effect from 01.01.2011. The writ petitions were allowed and operative portion of judgment is contained in paragraph 208 which is to the following effect: "208.   For   the   reasons   mentioned   above,   the   writ petitions are allowed. The impugned seniority list dated 24.12.2015 is set aside. It is held that: (i) promotion   of   officers   under   Rule   7(3)(a) [Regular promotion] of the 2007 Punjab Rules is held to be beyond quota, hence, ad hoc. They will   not   be   entitled   to   get   benefit   of   that service for the purpose of seniority; (ii) direct recruits shall not be entitled to be considered   as   members   of   the   cadre   from   the date of their recommendation by the High Court to the State, for appointment; (iii) as a consequence, the officers promoted under   Rule   7(3)(a)   of   the   2007   Punjab   Rules shall be placed at the bottom of the seniority after the direct recruits. 12 The seniority list be re­cast accordingly.” 16. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the High Court has filed Civil Appeal Nos.5518­23 of 2017. 17. Civil   Appeals   of   Kanwaljit   Singh   Bajwa   and   others   and Civil Appeal of Jatinder Kaur, two Civil Appeals by direct recruits,   other   Civil   Appeals   have   been   filed   by   promotee Officers whose promotions were treated to be ad hoc and are directed to be placed at the bottom of the seniority. Out of turn   promotees   had   not   challenged   the   judgment,   since,   the judgment of the High court was substantially in their favour.  SUBMISSIONS 18. Shri   Raju   Ramachandran   and   Shri   Ajit   Sinha,   learned senior counsel have appeared for the High Court. Shri Dushyant Dave and Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel have appeared   for   promotees.   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   senior counsel, has appeared for out of turn promotees. Shri Nidhesh Gupta,   learned   senior   counsel   has   appeared   for   direct recruits. In addition, we have also heard several counsel in this batch of appeals appearing for different parties.  19. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the High Court submits that seniority list prepared by the 13 High   Court   pursuant   to   the   acceptance   of   Judges'   Committee Report by Full Court was in accordance with Rules, 2007 and promotees had   first joined the post and when the promotees joined post of District Judge cadre, neither direct recruits nor out of turn promotees were born in the cadre.  20. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for regular promotees submits that they have completed five years of service in the year 2000 but neither any Rules were framed nor any examination was held. When the quota is to be followed due to the judgment of this Court, the promotees cannot be pushed down. No examination was held for effecting promotion under   Rule   7(3)(b)   hence   promotees   under   Rule   7(3)(a)   were entitled to have the quota meant for Rule 7(3)(b), continuous officiation   in   service   is   the   Rule   to   be   followed   for determination   of   seniority,   Full   Court   and   Administrative Committee has taken correct view of the matter. The officers desirous to compete, ought to have approached the High court praying that examination to be held. The High Court did not hold any suitability test for promotion of the officers under Rule 7(3)(a) for which promotees cannot be made to suffer. The challenge to promotion cannot be allowed to be raised at the time   of   determination   of   seniority.   The   roster   provided   in Appendix   B   to   the   Rules,   2007   is   only   for   the   purpose   of 14 recruitment   and   has   no   application   for   determination   of seniority.   Had   the   competitive   examination   for   out   of   turn promotees held in  February, 2008, promotees would have also appeared   and   would   have   succeeded   in   the   examination.   The appointment   having   not   made   in   time,   quota   rule   is   broken down. The promotees having been promoted on regular basis even if they are in excess of quota, their services have to be considered,   the   appointment   of   promotees   is   not   an   ad   hoc appointment, hence, entire service rendered by promotees is to be reckoned for seniority.  21. Shri   K.V.   Viswanathan   submits   that   assumption   that promotees are in excess of their quota is not correct. Rules, 2004   and   roster   introduced   by   Rules,   2007   has   to   be prospective. Computation has to be on 43 vacancies which were existing   vacancies   and   not   cadre   strength   of   107.   In accordance with 43 vacancies the quota for promotees will be 22, out of turn promotees will be 10 and direct recruits will be 11. The roster has no application for determination for seniority. Assuming that Appendix B applies, it is for quota and since examination has not been held in time the quota has broken down.  22. Shri P.S. Patwalia appearing for out of turn promotees submits   that   whole   argument   made   by   the   promotees   is 15 misconceived.   The   diversion   of   quota   under   Rule   7(3)(b)   to 7(3)(a)   shall   take   place   only   when   test   is   held   and   no suitable   candidate   is   available   for   appointment   under   Rule 7(3)(b). The quota applied to the post in service. The High Court   has   wrongly   applied   the   quota   to   the   vacancies.   25% quota   was   introduced   as   incentive   to   improve   meritorious officers. On date of selection, 53 were promotees who were in excess to their quota, 14 were filled by direct recruits and there were no vacancies for the regular promotees. There being no conscious decision of diversion of quota under Rule 7(3)(b) to 7(3)(a), no benefit can be claimed by the promotees. The clubbing of vacancies under Rule 7(3)(a) and 7(3)(b) is not permissible. The out of turn promotees have never challenged the merit promotion.  23. Shri Patwalia submits that roster is not applicable to the   seniority.   When   the   quota   is   worked   out   in   the   cadre strength   there   is   no   vacancy   under   Rule   7(3)(a)   but   15 promotions   have   been   affected.   Their   promotion   is   not   in accordance with law. Whether they would have taken test or not is realm of conjecture, if we construe Rule 23 of Rules, 2007 and  Punjab Civil Services (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 harmoniously the seniority has to be on the strength of length of service. Referring to Haryana Service Rules, Shri Patwalia 16 contends that in Haryana Service Rules roster has been made as part of seniority whereas in Punjab Service Rules it is not so. He submits that the High Court has made very equitable decision which needs no interference.  24. Shri Nidhesh Gupta appearing for direct recruits submits that   this   Court   in     All   India   Judges'   Association   case (supra)   has introduced roster in seniority for the purposes to minimise inter se dispute of seniority in the Higher Judicial Service.   The   judgment   of   this   Court   in   All   India   Judges' Association case   has to be given effect by the High Court. Rules, 2007 has to be interpreted in the light of the judgment of this Court in    All India Judges' Association case,   which directions resulted in Amendment Rules, 2004 and Rules, 2007. Out of turn promotees in their writ petitions have prayed for applying the roster for determination of seniority. The High Court although in the body of judgment held that roster is applicable   in   seniority   but   in   operative   portion   the   said conclusion is not reflected which had rendered the judgment of the High Court erroneous. The roster having been accepted as applicable for purposes of seniority, seniority list has to be drawn   as   per   roster.   It   is   submitted   that   process   of nd recruitment initiated on 2  February, 2008 whereas promotions and   out   of   turn   promotions   were   held   thereafter.     It   is 17 submitted that recommendations sent to the Government on the same   day   but   appointment   letter   for   direct   recruits   were received later which will have no effect on the seniority that is   the   direct   recruits   which   have   to   be   made   as   per   the roster. Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of Rules, 2007 makes it clear   that   appointment   has   to   be   made   as   per   roster   which clearly means that seniority will follow the appointment. In the writ petition filed before the High Court, out of turn promotees   have   categorically   taken   stand   that   roster   is relevant   for   the   purpose   of   seniority.   The   out   of   turn promotees cannot be allowed to take contrary stand before this Hon'ble Court. The fortuitous circumstances i.e. when letter of   appointments   were   issued   cannot   be   basis   for   seniority. Accepting   the   contention   that   length   of   service   should determine the seniority and not the roster, shall be defeating the All India Judges Association's judgment of this Court as well as Rules, 2007. Rules, 2007 specially Rule 7, Rule 12, Rule 23 read with Appendix B have to be construed in a manner so to advance the object of Rules and should be interpreted in a manner so that   no prejudice is caused to any member of Service.  25. Learned   counsel   for   the   parties   have   also   referred   to various judgments of this Court which shall be referred to 18 while considering the submissions in detail.  DISCUSSION 26. The subordinate judiciary of this Country is back bone of our   judicial   system.   It   is   the   subordinate   judiciary   which comes in contact with the common man   in administration of justice. This Court in   All India Judges' Association (supra) has noticed that the weight on the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary. In paragraph 27 following was observed: “27....The   subordinate   judiciary   is   the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is,   therefore,   imperative,   like   any   other foundation,   that   it   should   become   as   strong   as possible.   The   weight   on   the   judicial   system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary.....” 27. 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.   Promotions,   different perquisites and benefits follow seniority. It is, thus, very important that due claims of seniority of members of Superior Judicial Service are recognised and implemented by all those on   whose   shoulder   the   responsibility   of   determination   and 19 implementation   lies.   This   Court   by   its   direction   in     All India Judges' Association case (supra)   has required uniform procedure   for   recruitment   and   rules   for   determination   of seniority   with   the   object   of   achieving   a   uniformity   and   a certainty to minimise the inter se seniority dispute as far as possible. Thus, before we proceed to consider the respective submissions of the parties it is pertinent to refer   to the judgment of this Court in   All India Judges' Association case which is foundation of Service Rules, 2007 and throws light on different aspects of higher judicial service. 28. As   noticed   above,   1963   Rules   contained   provisions   for filling   the   post   of   Superior   Judicial   Service   only   by   two methods,   by   promotion   from   Punjab   Service   and   by   direct recruitment.   Initially   the   total   number   of   cadre   posts two­third   were   manned   by   promotion   and   one­third   direct recruits   which   was   changed   on   28.1.1991   as   three­fourth   by promotions and one­fourth by direct recruits.  29. In   different   States   there   were   different   Rules   for recruitment   in   Judicial   Service.   Justice   Shetty   Commission took up the whole breadth and length of Judicial Service, its service conditions, perks and all aspects of the matter. On 21.03.1996 pursuant to direction of this Court, Government of India by a Resolution constituted a First Judicial Commission 20 under   the   Justice   Shetty.   Justice   Shetty   Commission   has submitted its report on 11.11.1999 touching various aspects of Judicial Service. State and Union Territories were sent report asking their response. One of the questions which fell for consideration before the Justice Shetty Commission was method of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service. In    All India Judges' Association case (supra)   this Court held that it is imperative   for   the   Judicial   Officer   to   keep   abreast   of knowledge of law. This Court also held that there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges. In paragraph 27 of the judgment following was laid down:   “27....It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a judicial academy which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the   opinion   that   there   has   to   be   certain   minimum standards,   objectively   adjudged,   for   officers   who are   to   enter   the   higher   judicial   service   as Additional   District   Judges   and   District   Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the higher judicial service i.e., the District   Judge   cadre   from   amongst   the   advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and   viva   voce,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   there should   be   an   objective   method   of   testing   the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion   to   the   higher   judicial   service. Furthermore,   there   should   also   be   an   incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to 21 improve   and   to   compete   with   each   other   so   as   to excel   and   get   quicker   promotion.   In   this   way,   we expect that the caliber of the members of the higher judicial service will further improve. In order to achieve   this,   while   the   ratio   of   75   per   cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment   to   the   higher   judicial   service   is maintained,   we   are,   however,   of   the   opinion   that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per cent of the total post in the higher judicial services must be filled by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   principle   of merit­cum­seniority.   For   this   purpose,   the   High Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through   the   limited   departmental   competitive examination for which the qualifying service  as a Civil   Judge   (senior   division)   should   be   not   less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard. ” 30. In paragraph 28 directions were issued by this Court to the following effect: “28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we   direct   that   recruitment   to   the   High   Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be: (1)(a)   50   per   cent   by   promotion   from   amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and passing a suitability test;  (b) 25 per cent 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 per cent of the posts shall be filled by 22 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.” 31. This   Court   has   noticed   the   serious   discontentment regarding   inter   se   seniority   of   members   of   Higher   Judicial Service.   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. Following was laid down in paragraph 29: “29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the members of the higher judicial service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three decades, large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative seniority from the officers recruited from the   two   different   sources,   namely,   promotees   and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to higher judicial service. The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50 percent by following the   principle   "merit­cum­seniority"   25   percent strictly   on   merit   by   limited   departmental competitive examination and 25 per  cent by  direct recruitment.   Experience   has   also   shown   that   the least   amount   of   litigation   in   the   country,   where quota   system   in   recruitment   exists,   in   so   far   as seniority is concerned, is where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40­point roster which has been   prescribed   which   deals   with   the   quotas   for Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes.   Hardly,   if ever,   there   has   been   a   litigation   amongst   the members of the  service after their recruitment  as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points  and irrespective of the  fact as  to when  a 23 person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there   is   no   question   of   any   dispute   arising.   The 40­point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab[1995]2   SCC   745.   One   of   the   methods   of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies. This is  the basic principle on the basis of which the 40­point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case (supra) as early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof, there would   be   no   further   dispute   in   the   fixation   of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and rotational system. The existing relative seniority   of   the   members   of   the   higher   judicial service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved   for   the   future.   Appropriate   rules   and methods   will   be   adopted   by   the   High   Courts   and approved   by   the   States,   wherever   necessary   by 31­3­2003. ” 32. In pursuance of judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2002 Rules, 1963 were amended in 2004 by Punjab Superior Judicial Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2004 where for existing Rules following Rules have been substituted: "8. Recruitment   to   Service.­   Recruitments   to   the Service shall be made in the following manner:­ (a) fifty   per   cent   by   promotion   from   amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of   merit­cum­seniority   and   passing   a suitability test; (b) twenty five per cent by promotion strictly on   the   basis   of   merit   through   limited 24 departmental   competitive   examination   of   Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service; (c) twenty five per cent by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible Advocates by holding a test consisting of written examination of 200 marks   and   viva   voce   test   of   50   marks   to   be conducted by the High Court”. 33. Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 were framed rd and notified in Gazette on 3   September, 2007. Rule 7 dealt with method of appointment which is to the following effect: “7.   Method   of   appointment.   —   (1)   The appointment   to   the   Service   by   promotion   shall   be made from amongst the members of the Punjab Civil Service(Judicial   Branch),   by   the   Governor   on   the recommendations of the High Court. (2) The direct appointment to the Service shall be made by the Governor on the recommendations of the High Court from amongst the eligible  advocates  on the   basis   of   the   written   test   and   viva­voce conducted by the High Court. (3) Appointment to the Service shall be made in the following manner :­ (a)   fifty   per   cent   by   promotion   from   amongst the   Civil   Judges   (Senior   Division),   on   the basis of merit­cum­seniority and passing of a suitability test ; (b)   twenty­five   per   cent   by   promotion   on   the basis of merit through departmental competitive examination   of   Civil   Judges   (Senior   Division) having   not   less   than   five   years   qualifying Service as Civil Judge (Senior Division); and (c) twenty­five per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct appointment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written 25 test   and   viva­voce,   as   conducted   by   the   High Court. Explanation. — For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b), it is clarified that the qualifying service for promotion   should   be   either   on   the   post   of   Civil Judge(Senior Division) or Chief Judicial Magistrate or   Additional   Civil   Judge(Senior   Division) separately or by clubbing the service on any of the said posts. (4) These posts shall be filled in accordance with the Roster attached as Appendix­B.” 34. Rule 12 dealt with seniority in the following manner: “12. Seniority .—(1)The original seniority of the promotee officers promoted from amongst the members of   the   Punjab   Civil   Services   (Judicial   Branch), shall not be disturbed.  (2)   The   inter   se   seniority   of   the   out­of­turn promoted officers shall be in the order of merit as is determined by the High Court. (3) The inter se seniority of the direct appointees shall be on the basis of merit as is determined by the High Court : Provided further that an officer, who is promoted on ad hoc basis on a vacant post, belonging to the out­of­turn promotee officers or direct appointees, as the case may be, shall not have any right on the said post and such officer shall not be allowed to claim addition of the period of such ad hoc service towards the Service for the purpose of seniority.” 35. Rule   23   dealt   with   application   of   the   Punjab   Civil Services   (General   and   Common   Conditions   of   Service)   Rules, 1994 in respect of the matters, which are not specifically provided in these rules. Rule 23 is as follows: 26 “23. Application of the Punjab Civil Services (General   and  Common   Conditions   of   Service Rules, 1994. — (1) In respect of the matters, which   are   not   specifically   provided   in   these rules,   the   members   of   the   Service   shall   be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, as amended from time to time: Provided that the said rules of 1994 shall not affect the provisions as contained in rules 5, 7, 12, 13, 19, 20 and 21 of these rules :  Provided further that the conditions of service as   determined   by   the   National   Judicial   Pay Commission shall have an over riding effect.  (2)   The   Punjab   Civil   Services   (General   and Commons Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, at present,   in   force   are   contained   in   Appendix `E'.” 36. Appendix 'B' provided for roster as referred to in Rules, 2007. 37. As noticed above in the present matter recruitments for all the three streams as enumerated in Rule 7(3)(a), (b) and (c) were completed in 2008 and all incumbent also joined their post in 2008. The dispute is regarding  inter se  seniority of above three streams. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and pleadings on record following are main issues   which have arisen for consideration in this batch of appeals: (1) Whether   promotees   promoted   under   Rule   7(3)(a), 27 15 in numbers who were promoted and joined their post in February, 2008 were: (a) in excess to their quota, (b) their   appointment   has   to   be   treated   as   ad   hoc appointment, (c) they have to be placed at the bottom of seniority. (2) Whether   appointment   to   members   of   Superior Judicial Service belonging to all three streams have to be made on the basis of roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007. (3) Whether for determination of inter se seniority belonging to all the three streams has to be based on the basis of roster in pursuance of Rule 7 read with Appendix B. (4) How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges is   to   be   determined   who   were   earlier   working   as   Fast Track Judges and have been absorbed and taken in regular cadre   in   different   stream   under   Rule   7(3)(a),   (b)   and (c). (5) Reliefs, if any. Issue No.1:  Whether promotees are in excess of their quota? 38. The High Court in its impugned judgment has noticed the cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial Service as 107 on 28 10.11.2007.     The   Promotion   quota   under   Rule   7(3)(a)   was determined as 53 and actual working having been found as 58. High Court noticed that 05 officers were working in excess. 25 per cent quota under Rule 7(3)(b) was determined as 27, which   was   found   to   be   vacant.     Direct   recruits   were   also determined as 21 excluding the officers in position.  14 posts were advertised for direct recruitment.   One of the issues raised is as to whether for determination of the quota cadre strength has to be looked into or quota has to be determined on   the   basis   of   vacancies   by   bifurcating   vacancies   as   per respective quota.  The issue is no more res integra.  In  All India Judges Case (supra) , this Court in Para 29 has held “One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies”. A Three Judge Bench of this Court in   Srikant Roy and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand   and   Others,   (2017)   1   SCC   457   while   determining question   of   number   of   vacancies   in   respect   of   limited competitive examination of Jharkhand as in Jharkhand Superior Judicial   Service   has   held   that   “cadre   strength   is   always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre and the percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the 29 vacancy   that   would   occur.     Following   was   laid   down   in Paragraph 24:­ “24.   The High Court has overlooked  the distinction between “post” and “vacancy”. If the requisite posts were already exhausted by the direct recruits against the   earmarked   quota   for   direct   recruitment,   merely because some vacancies occur, it would not be open to the   aspiring   candidates   against   the   direct   recruit quota   to   challenge   the   selection   process   commenced for   the   in­service   judicial   officers   by   promotion through   limited   competitive   examination.   The   cadre strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in the given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the vacancy that would occur…………………………….” 39.  The High Court Committee determined the vacancies for all the three streams for 2008 recruitment on the basis of cadre strength of 107.  Working strength before 2008 selection was 58 promotees, 0 out of turn promotion and 6 direct recruits. Thus, 64 officers were in position and there were 43 vacancies for   2008   recruitment.     High   Court   determined   vacancies   for Rule 7(3)(a) as 15, for Rule 7(3)(b) as 8 and 14 for direct recruitment.   In the impugned judgment, the High Court has taken a view that since 50 per cent of 107 cadre strength comes as 53, 5 promotee officers were in excess, since working strength before 2008 selection was 58.  The above calculation has been arrived by determining 50 per cent of 107.  Whether 30 any   fallacy   is   committed   by   the   High   Court   in   above determination   is   to   be   examined.     On   face   of   it,   the determination on mathematical calculation, i.e. taking 50 per cent   of   cadre   strength   for   promotees   come   to   53.     Thus, whether 5 officers, who were found in excess were in excess of their quota is one part of question and the other part of question would be that what number of vacancies have to be earmarked for out of turn promotees under Rule 7(3)(b).   We have already noticed that from 28.01.1991, Rule 8 was amended providing for three­fourth of the cadre to be filled up by promotee   officers   and   one­fourth   by   direct   recruits.     The above position continues till Rules were amended in 2004 under the direction of this court in  All India Judges case (supra) . 40.  For the first time by amending Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules on 15.01.2004, the promotion quota under Rule 8 was fixed as 50 per cent, 25 per cent for limited departmental competitive examination and   as far as for direct recruits, earlier 25 per cent was maintained.  Thus, the issue was only with   regard   to   quota   for   promotion   on   the   basis   of merit­cum­seniority and of out of turn promotees.  This Court in   All   India   Judges   case   (supra)   in   Para   29   has   clearly directed that the system which was directed to be put in place by   this   Court   vide   Paras   27,   28   and   29   was   to   apply 31 prospectively.  This Court had directed that appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the   States,   wherever   necessary   by   31st   March,   2003.     Upto 2004,   the   quota   for   promotion   on   the   basis   of merit­cum­seniority was 75 per cent, the cadre strength as on 13.09.2007 was 89, which was increased on 10.11.2007 as 107. After the amendment of Rules on 15.01.2004, promotion of 10 officers were made.   It is mentioned in the Civil Appeal of the High Court that cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial Service before 2004 was 88.  Thus, in the year 2004, when the cadre strength was 88, 75 per cent posts were to be manned by promotees under merit­cum­seniority, i.e. 66 were to be manned by promotee officers.  The judgment of this Court in  All India Judges case (supra)   being prospective, the ratio of officers as   existing   before   unamended   rules   can   not   be   adversely affected.  A promotee before the amendment of Rules, 2004, who was well within their quota, suddenly cannot go out of their quota and become an excess merely on the strength of amendment of Rules, which are prospective in nature.   For determining the quota, the cadre strength, which existed prior to amended rules and subsequent to the amended rules have to be treated differently.  Promotees quota, which was 75 per cent prior to 2004 Rules makes 66 posts in their quota as before amendment 32 dated 15.01.2004, when the cadre strength has been increased from   89   to   107,   18   posts   have   to   be   further   added   to   the cadre.  This increase having been made after the amendment of the Rules dated 15.01.2004, on this cadre strength, the Rules as amended will be applied for bifurcation of quota.   On 18 newly created posts, 50 percent comes to 9, for out of turn promotees   4.5   and   for   direct   recruits   4.5.     Thus   promotee officers on or after the increase of the cadre could have been 66+9 i.e. 75.  In the appeal filed by the High Court, it is also   indicated   that   10   promotees   were   affected   in   October, 2004   under   50   per   cent   quota   of   merit­cum­seniority.     The rules providing 25 per cent quota for out of turn promotion being   in   place,   at­least   few   vacancies   ought   to   have   been given to the out of turn promotees.   There is no details of any further promotion or appointment made after 2004 to 2008. The out of turn promotion quota having been culled out only as per   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   All   India   Judges   case (supra) , which was to be required in the Rules by the State, the said quota will come into existence only prospectively. An out of turn promotee cannot claim that they should be given 25 per cent posts of the cadre strength right from day one. It is true that quota has to be determined on the basis of cadre strength but determination of the cadre strength has to 33 be made taking into consideration that rules amended w.e.f. 15.01.2004   were   prospective   in   nature   and   cannot   impair   or affect   any   right,   which   accrued   to   the   member   of   judicial service prior to the amendment of the Rules.   41.  We, thus, do not find any patent error in the calculation of the vacancy by the High court in the administrative side and   consequently   the   recruitment   made   from   three   different streams   was   well   within   such   determination   and   cannot   be faulted.  The promotion of officers under Rule 7(3)(a) was in accordance with the rules and there is no question of treating the promotion to be adhoc promotion nor they can be pushed to the bottom of seniority.  The new set of rules, the new scheme of   recruitment,   new   rules   of   determination   of   seniority   as brought in place by 2007 Rules, its implementation has to be done   with   care   so   as   not   to   defeat   any   existing   right. Mechanical   application   of   the   rules,   which   may   result   to unjust result has to be avoided to advance the scheme of the new rules and the object which were delineated by this Court in  All India Judges case (supra).    While allocating posts to be filled by different streams, cadre strength, officers of particular stream in position, quota of each stream has to be kept   in   mind.     The   vacancies   existing   for   recruitment   in particular   year   has   not   to   be   mechanically   divided   at   the 34 ratio of 50, 25 and 25 per cent.  Issue Nos. 2 and 3: Whether appointment to members of Superior Judicial Service belonging to all three streams have to be made on the basis of roster as per Rule 7(4) read with  Appendix B of the Rules, 2007? and Whether for determination of inter se seniority belonging to all the three streams has to be based on the basis of roster in pursuance of Rule 7 read with Appendix B? 42.     One   of   the   major   area   of   difference   in   submissions advanced   by   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   promotees, direct   recruits   and   out   of   turn   promotees   is   regarding applicability of roster for determination of seniority.  In so far the stand of out of turn promotees is concerned, although before the High Court in its pleadings and submissions, out of turn   promotees   prayed   for   implementation   of   roster   in seniority but in this Court they have taken a somersault and are   now   contending   that   the   roster   is   not   applicable   in seniority.  43.   Rota and quota in service jurisprudence is well known concept,   which   finds   reflected   in   large   number   of   service rules   of   different   services.     Quota   between   promotees   and directs were throughout present in 1963 Rules, which has been further   amplified   in   2007   Rules.   This   Court   in   All   India Judges   case   (supra)   has   highlighted   the   importance   and   the 35 usefulness of roster system.  In Para 29, it was held: “Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation   in   the   country,   where   quota   system   in recruitment   exists,   insofar   as   seniority   is concerned,   is   where   a   roster   system   is   followed”. For   example,   there   is,   as   per   the   rules   of   the Central Government, a 40­point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has   been   a   litigation   amongst   the   members   of   the service after their recruitment as per  the quotas, the   seniority   is   fixed   by   the   roster   points   and irrespective   of   the   fact   as   to   when   a   person   is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no   question   of   any   dispute   arising.   The   40­point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in   R.K. Sabharwal   v.   State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 .” 44.   The Rules, 2007 has been amended by direction of this Court in in  All India Judges case (supra) .  Now, coming back to the Rules, 2007, there are two rules, which need to be interpreted to find out real purpose and intent of 2007 Rules. Rule   7   as   noted   above   provides   for   method   of   recruitment, sub­rule(3) provides for appointment to the service shall be made   50   per   cent   by   promotion   on   the   basis   of merit­cum­seniority, 25 per cent by promotion on the basis of merit   through   departmental   competitive   examination   of   Civil Judges   (Senior   Division)   and   25   percent   of   posts   shall   be filled   by   direct   recruitment.     Sub­clause   (4),   which   is relevant provides “these posts shall be filled in accordance with the Roster attached as Appendix­B”.  Part of Appendix­B, 36 which is relevant for the present case is as follows (only part is quoted):­ “ APPENDIX ‘B’ [See sub­rule(4) of rule 7] ROSTER ROSTER INDICATING THE MODE OF RECRUITMENT

45.  Sub­rule (4) uses the phrase “the posts shall be filled”. The   word   “filled”   means   appointment   on   the   post.     The submission of the learned counsel for the promotees is that sub­rule(4)   read   with   Appendix­B   at   best   can   be   read   that roster   is   to   be   followed   in   recruitment   only   and   not   for determination of seniority.  When an order for filling up of a post is provided in Appendix­B, the purpose and object is that officers of different streams should hold the posts in the 37 sequence, which is provided in Appendix­B.  The recruitment to the   different   streams   consists   of   different   and   separate processes, few processes may take lesser time like effecting promotion under Rule 7(3)(a) whereas few processes like direct recruitment   under   7(3)(c)   takes   greater   time.     For   direct recruits,   which   is   an   All   India   Competitive   Written   Test, large   number   of   candidates   participate   and   evaluation   of answer   sheets   and   holding   viva­voce   takes   sufficient   time. The object as incapsulated by this Court in  All India Judges case (supra)   in carrying recruitment by roster was with the object of eliminating disputes pertaining to determination of seniority.  The Rule 7(4) and Appendix­B has to be read in a manner so as to advance the object of the Rules.   When this court   directed   for   adopting   roster   system   for   determining seniority, Rules, 2007 cannot be interpreted in a manner which may violate the direction of this Court.  Article 141 of the Constitution provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall   be   binding   on   all   courts   and   authorities.     In   this reference,   it   is   useful   to   refer   to   a   Three   Judge   Bench judgment of this Court in  O.P. Singla and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 450,  this Court had occasion to consider the issue of seniority and promotion in context of temporary promotee, direct recruits quota rules in respect of 38 Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970.  This Court in Para 17   held   that   when   a   Rule   or   Section   is   part   of   integral scheme, it should not be considered or construed in isolation. In paragraph 17, following has been held:­ “ 17 ……………However, it is well recognised that, when a rule or a section is a part of an integral scheme, it should not be considered or construed in isolation. One must have regard to the scheme of the fasciculus of the relevant rules or sections in order to deter­ mine the true meaning of any one or more of them. An isolated  consideration  of a provision leads to the risk of some other inter­related provision becoming otiose or devoid of meaning. That makes it necessary to call attention to the very next rule, namely, Rule 8. It provides by clause 2 that: “The   seniority   of   direct   recruits   vis­a­vis promotees shall be determined in the order of rotation of vacancies   between the direct re­ cruits and promotees   based on the quotas of vacancies   reserved   for   both   categories   by Rule 7   provided that the first available va­ cancy will be filled by a direct recruit and the   next   two   vacancies   by   promotees   and   so on.” (emphasis supplied) This   provision   leaves   no   doubt   that   the   overall scheme of the rules and the true intendment of the proviso to Rule 7 is that one­third of the substan­ tive posts in the Service must be reserved for direct recruits. Otherwise, there would neither be any occa­ sion nor any justification for rotating vacancies be­ tween direct recruits and promotees. Rule 8(2), which deals with fixation of seniority amongst the members of the Service, provides, as it were, a key to the interpretation   of   the   proviso   to   Rule   7   by   saying that the proviso prescribes “quotas” and reserves va­ cancies for both categories. The language of the pro­ viso to Rule 7 is certainly not felicitous and is un­ conventional   if   its   intention   was   to   prescribe   a 39 quota for direct recruits. But the proviso, as I have stated   earlier,   must   be   read   along   with   Rule   8(2) since the two provisions are interrelated. Their com­ bined reading yields but one result, that the proviso prescribes a quota of one­third for direct recruits.” 46.  One submission, which was pressed by learned counsel for the promotees as well as by learned counsel appearing for the out   of   turn   promotees   was   that   in   2007   itself,   Judicial Service   Rules   have   been   framed   for   Haryana   namely,   Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, in which Rules, it was expressly   provided   by   Rule   10   of   the   Rules   that   inter   se seniority of the persons recruited to the service under clause (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 6 shall take his position in the seniority   list   as   shown   in   roster   annexed.   Rule   10   of   the Haryana Rules is as follows:­ “ 10. Seniority.   (i)(a) The inter se seniority of the members of the Haryana   Civil   Service   (Judicial   Branch) promoted   in   the   same   batch   under   rule   6(a) shall   be   the   same   as   in   the   Haryana   Civil Service (Judicial Branch). (b)   Inter   se   seniority   of   the   member   of   the Haryana   Superior   Judicial   Service   promoted under rule 6(b) shall be in the order of merit determined in the selection process.  (c) Inter se seniority of the direct recruits to the Service under rule 6(c) shall be on the basis   of   merit   determined   by   the   Selection Committee of the High Court at the time of the recruitment. 40 (d) Inter se seniority position of the officers appointed in the Service under rule 6 shall be as given in roster annexed. (ii) A person recruited to the Service under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 6 shall take his position in the   seniority   list   as   shown   in   the   roster   annexed irrespective of the date on which he actually joins the Service. (iii) A promoted officer, who is promoted on an ad hoc basis in the vacancy/post against a roster point earmarked   for   an   officer   belonging   to   categories specified in clauses (b) and (c) of rule 6, shall not have any right to the post. He shall not be entitled to   add   period   of   his   ad   hoc   service   to   regular service for the purpose of seniority: Provided that the existing rules shall continue to govern   the   matters   of   seniority   of   the   existing members of the Service.” 47.  It has been pointed out that both Judicial Service Rules, 2007 of Haryana and Punjab Superior Judicial Rules, 2007 were sent by the High Court in the similar fashion, where Punjab Rules have been published by the Government by changing the proposed rules pertaining to seniority without consultation of the High Court.   The High Court in its impugned judgment in Para 181 after noticing the Haryana Rules, 6, 7, 8 and 9 has made following observations:­ “Similar rules were recommended by the High Court to the State of Punjab for notification but changed at its own level without consultation with High Court.”  48.  In the present case, we need not enter into the issue as 41 to what was proposed and what changes were made by Government while   notifying   the   rules.     The   above   observation   in   the impugned judgment clearly indicate that Punjab & Haryana High Court   has   contemplated   to   implement   the   direction   of   this Court in  All India Judges case (supra)  and it was clear to the High Court that the appointment of all the three streams as per   roster   is   to   also   determine   the   seniority   as   per   the roster.   In any view of the matter, there is nothing in the Rules – Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which may   indicate   that   there   is   any   provision   contrary   to determination of seniority by roster.   Mere fact that said rules   are   not   explicit   or   makes   it   expressly   clear   that seniority is to be determined on the basis of roster is not conclusive.   The purpose and object of the Rule 7 of Rules, 2007 read with Appendix­B is clear that the roster is to be followed for determination of the seniority.  The High Court in   the   impugned   judgment   has   considered   the   issue   as   to whether roster is applicable in determination of seniority or not.   Issue No. 7 as was noticed above, which was framed by the Committee and was also adjudicated by the High Court was “Whether roster (Appendix­B) can be read into and applied to the   rule   of   seniority”.     After   elaborate   discussions,   High Court in Para 180 concluded:­ 42 “Hence,   this   Court   is   of   the   opinion   that   for determination of inter se seniority of officers recruited from   three   different   sources,   roster   as   directed   by Hon’ble the Supreme Court shall be applicable.   The same forms  part   of  the  Rules   as   Appendix   ‘B’   but   mentioning roster for recruitment, however, shall be applicable even for determination of seniority.” 49.  We endorse the above view of the High Court that roster shall be applicable for determination of seniority.   50.  At this juncture, one of the submissions, which has been emphatically pressed by the learned counsel for the promotees is that for determination of seniority, continuous length of service is determinative.  The direct recruits and out of turn promotees, who were not even born in the cadre when promotees were   promoted,   they   have   to   take   seniority   after   the promotees.   In this reference, it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in  Union of India and Others Vs. N.R. , the issue in the said Parmar and Others, (2012) 13 SCC 340 case was also an issue of determination of seniority between direct   recruits   vis­à­vis   promotees   and   quota   and   rota principles.   This Court had occasion to consider the office memorandum   issued   by   the   Government   dated   22.12.1959. Noticing   Para   6   of   above   office   memorandum   following   was stated in Para 23 of the judgment:­ “23.  The General Principles for determining seniority 43 in the Central Services are shown to have been laid down   in   an   annexure   to   an   Office   Memorandum   dated 22­12­1959 issued by  the Government of  India, Min­ istry   of   Home   Affairs   (hereinafter   referred   to   as “the OM dated 22­12­1959”). Para 6 of the annexure, referred to above, laid down the manner of determin­ ing inter se  seniority  between direct recruits and promotees. Para 6 is being extracted hereunder: “ 6.   Relative seniority of direct recruits and promotees .—The   relative   seniority   of   direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quotas of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the Department Rules.” It is apparent from the above extract of the OM dated 22­12­1959,   that   the   “quota”   between   promotees   and direct   recruits   was   to   be   read   into   the   seniority rule. The OM also provided for a definite rotation of seniority points (“rota”) between promotees and di­ rect recruits. The rotation provided for was founded on the concept of rotation of quotas between promo­ tees and direct recruits. It is therefore apparent, that under the OM dated 22­12­1959 inter se seniority between the promotees and direct recruits was based on   the   “quota”   and   “rota”   principle.   The   same   has been meaningfully described as “rotation of quotas” in some of these instruments.” 51.  There was further office memorandum on 07.02.1986 to take care of situation where it was decided that in future, while the principle of rotation of quotas will still be followed for determining   the   inter­se   seniority   of   direct   recruits   and promotees, the present practice of keeping vacant slots for being filled up by direct recruits of later years, thereby 44 giving   them   unintended   seniority   over   promotees   who   were already   in   position,   would   be   dispensed   with.   This   Court noticed office memorandum dated 07.02.1986 and observed that “when direct recruits or promotees become available through later examinations or selections”, it clearly mean that the situation contemplated is one where, there has been an earlier examination or selection, and is then followed by a "later" examination or selection. 52.  In the above context, this court laid down following in Paragraph   31.2   that   “it   is   not   necessary,   that   the   direct recruits of a particular recruitment year, should join within the recruitment year itself”. It was held that date of joining would not be a relevant factor for determining seniority of direct recruits.   In paragraph 31.2 and 34.1 following has been laid down:­ “31.2.  It is not necessary, that the direct recruits for   vacancies   of   a   particular   recruitment   year, should join within the recruitment year (during which the vacancies had arisen) itself. As such, the date of joining would not be a relevant factor for deter­ mining seniority of direct recruits. It would suffice if action has been initiated for direct recruit va­ cancies, within the recruitment year in which the va­ cancies had become available. This is so, because de­ lay in administrative action, it was felt, could not deprive an individual of his due seniority. As such, initiation of action for recruitment within the re­ cruitment year would be sufficient to assign senior­ ity to the appointees concerned in terms of the “ro­ tation of quotas” principle, so as to arrange them with other appointees (from the alternative source), 45 for vacancies of the same recruitment year. 34.1.   If the process of recruitment has been initi­ ated during the recruitment year (in which the vacan­ cies have arisen) itself, even if the examination for the said recruitment is held in a subsequent year, and the result is declared in a year later (than the one in which the examination was held), and the se­ lected   candidates   joined   in   a   further   later   year (than the one in which the result was declared), the selected candidates will be entitled to be assigned seniority, with reference to the recruitment year (in which   the   requisition   of   vacancies   was   made).   The logic and reasoning for the aforesaid conclusion (ex­ pressed in the ON dated 2­2­2000) is, if the process of direct recruitment is initiated in the recruitment year   itself,   the   selected   candidate(s)   cannot   be blamed   for   the   administrative   delay,   in   completing the process of selection.” 53.   In the present case, process for all the three streams was completed in the year 2008 and all the officers of three streams had joined in the same year.     The submission that quota   rota   rule   was   broken   or   seniority   will   be   affected because of joining of one category of officers earlier cannot be accepted.   It is also relevant to notice that purpose of statutory rules and laying down a procedure for recruitment was to achieve the certainty.  Officers belonging to different streams   have   to   be   confidant   that   they   shall   be   recruited under their quota and get seniority as per their quota and roster.  In event, the seniority is to be fixed with date of joining of particular stream, it will lead to uncertainty and 46 making   seniority   depending   on   administrative   authorities, which   is   neither   in   the   interest   of   service   nor   serve   the cause   of   justice.   We,   thus,   conclude   that   roster   is   fully applicable   for   determination   of   seniority.     Officers   of different streams selected in a particular year even though they were allowed to join the post on different dates shall not affect their inter se seniority, which is to be decided on the basis of roster.                   The   position   of   Fast   Track   Court   Judges   including   in   the Select list of all three streams in 2008 recruitment. 54. The promotion order issued by the Government of Punjab on the   recommendations   of   the   High   Court   promoting   fifteen officers under 50% quota under Rule 7(3)(a) also contained six officers   who   were   working   on   ad­hoc   basis   in   Fast   Track Courts. Similarly, appointment order promoting eight judicial officers under quota for out of turn promotion included one officer Shri Arunvir Vashista, who was working on ad­hoc basis in Fast Track Court. The tentative seniority list indicates that two officers namely Parminder Pal Singh (at Sl.No.15) and Sukhdev Singh (Sl.No.16) were shown as direct recruits having been   absorbed   from   Fast   Track   Courts   against   the   quota   of direct recruits under Rule 7(3)(c). Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev   Singh   were   recruited   as   Fast   Track   Court   Judges 47 directly from the Bar. In the tentative seniority list, the name of promotee officers who had earlier been working as Fast Track Court Judge have been shown as per their seniority in lower cadre.  55. The officers, under out of turn promotions quota, whose names were mentioned at Serial No.17 to 24 under Rule 7(3)(b) were arranged according to their merit as disclosed in limited Departmental   Competitive   Examination.   Two   Fast   Track   Court Judges   who   were   included   against   available   posts   in   direct recruit quota were shown above the direct recruits. In so far inter­se­seniority   amongst   the   promotee   officers   promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) is concerned, there is no issue. All have been arranged according to their seniority as required by Rule 12(1). After the circulation of tentative seniority list dated 25.09.2014,   objections   were   filed   by   direct   recruits questioning the placement of Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh   at   Serial   No.15   and   16   under   the   direct   quota   above other direct recruits.  56.  With regard to Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, it was   stated   by   direct   recruits   that   their   appointment   under Rule 7(3)(c) was not permissible since they were not advocates at the time of selection of Direct recruits and they were not 48 selected on the basis of the written test and viva­voice under which   all   direct   recruit   candidates   were   subjected.   It   was submitted that absorption of these officers is an   ex gratia absorption   in   service   and   as   such   they   cannot   be   treated senior to the direct recruits.  57.  One of the out of turn promotee namely, Arunvir Vashista had staked his claim before the committee.   It was submitted that   he   being   seniormost   officer   among   the   out   of   turn selected candidates and although he was placed at serial No.6 as per his merit but he being the only officer who already stood promoted as presiding officer of the Fast Track Court on ad­hoc   basis,   he   was  entitled   to   be   absorbed   and   remained promoted   to   the   Superior   Judicial   Service.   Thus,   his appointment   on   regular   basis   will   relate   back   to   his appointment in Fast Track Court in the service.   58.   With regard to absorption of Fast Track Court Judges, this Court had elaborately considered the issue in  Brij Mohan Lal versus Union of India and others, (2012) 6 SCC 502 . Fast Track Courts Judges who were working as direct recruits from the Bar as well as those who were ad­hoc promotees as Fast Track Court Judges had staked their claim for being absorbed on regular cadre. After considering the respective submission, 49 this   court   in   paragraph   207   has   issued   various   directions. Paragraph 207.9 relates to Fast Track Court Judges who were appointed   by   way   of   direct   appointment,   which   is   to   the following effect: ­ “ 207.9.   All   the   persons   who   have   been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the Bar as Judges to preside over FTCs under the   FTC   Scheme   shall   be   entitled   to   be appointed to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial   Services   of   the   respective   States only in the following manner: (a) The direct recruits to FTCs who opt for regularization   shall   take   a   written examination   to   be   conducted   by   the   High Courts   of   the   respective   States   for determining their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges. (b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an   interview   by   a   Selection   Committee consisting   of   the   Chief   Justice   and   four senior most Judges of that High Court. (c)   There   shall   be   150   marks   for   the written   examination   and   100   marks   for   the interview. The qualifying marks shall be 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC   candidates.   The   examination   and interview   shall   be   held   in   accordance   with the relevant Rules enacted by the States for direct   appointment   to   Higher   Judicial Services. (d)   Each   of   the   appointees   shall   be entitled to one mark per year of service in the   FTCs,   which   shall   form   part   of   the 50 interview marks. (e)   Needless   to   point   out   that   this examination and interview should be conducted by the respective High Courts keeping in mind that   all   these   applicants   have   put   in   a number of years as FTC Judges and have served the   country   by   administering   justice   in accordance with law. The written examination and interview module, should, thus, be framed keeping   in   mind   the   peculiar   facts   and circumstances of these cases. (f) The candidates who qualify the written examination   and   obtain   consolidated percentage   as   aforeindicated   shall   be appointed to the post of Additional District Judge in the regular cadre of the State. (g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available   in   the   regular   cadre,   we   hereby direct the State Governments to create such additional   vacancies   as   may   be   necessary keeping   in   view   the   number   of   candidates selected. (h)   All   sitting   and/or   former   FTC   Judges who were directly appointed from the Bar and are   desirous   of   taking   the   examination   and interview   for   regular   appointment   shall   be given age relaxation. No application shall be rejected   on   the   ground   of   age   of   the applicant being in excess of the prescribed age.” 59.  With   regard   to   candidates   from   any   state   who   were promoted as Fast Track Court Judges from the post of Civil Judge,   Senior   division,   following   direction   were   issued   in 51 paragraph 207.13: “207.13.  The candidates from any State, who were promoted as FTC Judges from the post of Civil Judge, Senior Division having requisite experience in service, shall be entitled to be absorbed and remain promoted to the Higher Judicial Services of that State subject to: (a) Such promotion, when effected against the   25%   quota   for   out­of­turn   promotion   on merit,   in   accordance   with   the   judgment   of 12 this Court in All India Judges’ Assn. (3) , by   taking   and   being   selected   through   the requisite   examination,   as   contemplated   for out­of­turn promotion. (b)   If   the   appointee   has   the   requisite seniority   and   is   entitled   to   promotion against   25%   quota   for   promotion   by seniority­cum­merit, he shall be promoted on his own turn to the Higher Judicial Services without any written examination. (c)   While   considering   candidates   either under   Category   (a)   or   (b)   above,   due weightage   shall   be   given   to   the   fact   that they have already put in a number of years in service in the Higher Judicial Services and, of   course,   with   reference   to   their performance. (d) All other appointees in this category, in  the  event  of discontinuation of  the  FTC Scheme,   would   revert   to   their   respective posts in the appropriate cadre.” 60.   With regard to the candidates Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev   Singh,   Recruitment   and   Appointment   committee   has 52 noticed   that   they   were   subjected   to   a   written   test   and viva­voice for finding their suitability to be absorbed in the regular Cadre. In paragraph 9 of the report dated 11.08.2015 of Recruitment/Promotion Committee (Superior Judicial Service) it has noticed that presiding officers of Fast Track Courts for being considered in the regular Cadre, they were subjected to undergo written test examination and viva­voice. Paragraph 9 of the report of the committee is as follows: ­ “9.   Hon’ble   Selection   Committee   comprising the Chief Justice and four senior­most judges in its meeting held on 18.03.2008 considered the absorption of Presiding Officers of Fast Track   Courts   in   the   regular   cadre   of Additional   District   &   Sessions   Judges   from the quota of Bar in the State in the States of   Punjab   and   Haryana,   respectively.   The Officers   were   considered   on   the   basis   of their performance in (i) written examination; (ii) viva voice and (iii) ACRs. As per the merit list, the names of Parminder Pal Singh and   Sukhdev   Singh   were   recommended   for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District   &   Sessions   Judge   in   the   State   of Punjab.   These   recommendations   were   approved by   the   Full   Court   in   its   meeting   held   on 10.04.2008.   The   Government   of   Punjab appointed   both   the   Officers   to   Punjab Superior   Judicial   Service   Order   dated 24.06.2008.” ” 61.  The above report was subsequently approved by full court on the basis of which tentative seniority list was issued. The two   officers   Parminder   Pal   Singh   and   Sukhdev   Singh   were 53 appointed to Punjab Superior Judicial Service by Order dated 24.06.2008. In the tentative seniority list, they were placed at serial no.15 and 16 i.e. above the direct recruits. It is relevant   to   note   that   the   tentative   seniority   list   was prepared by the committee on the basis of continuous length of service. It was probably due to that reason that serial no. 15 and   16,   direct   recruits   were   shown   above   the   out   of   turn promotees and direct recruits. The above two officers who were taken on the regular Cadre of Additional District Judge, after written   test   and   viva­voce   test   which   is   almost   the   same procedure which has been subsequently laid down by this Court in  Brij Mohan Lal case dated 19.04.2012(Supra).  The above two officers   having   been   included   in   direct   recruitment   quota, they have to be clubbed along with the direct recruits. We have   already   held   that   for   determining   the   seniority,   the roster is applicable. The objection of direct recruits that they cannot be included in the quota meant for direct recruits since   they   have   not   undergone   the   same   written   test   and viva­voce, which has been undertaken by the direct recruits, thus, cannot be accepted. 62. As per the judgment of this court in  Brij Mohan Lal case (Supra) , officers from Bar, advocates working as Fast Track Court Judges can be taken under the regular Cadre after they 54 have cleared the written test and viva­voice. The direction of this Court in paragraph 207.9(g) which says that “if for any reason, vacancies are not available in the regular Cadre, we hereby direct the State Government to create such additional vacancies as may be necessary, keeping in view the number of selected candidates”, indicates that Fast Track Court Judges had to be taken into regular cadre if vacancies are there. In the   present   case,   there   have   been   adjustments   against   two vacancies which were available, hence, they having been taken in the regular Cadre as a direct recruit, has to be accepted. Further, present is not a case where their selection in the regular cadre as Additional District Judge is under challenge. Only issue which is raised is regarding their placement in the seniority list.  63.  One more aspect in this context needs to be noted. Rule 12(3)   provides   that   “the   inter­se­seniority   of   the   direct appointee shall be on the basis of merit as is determined by the   High   Court.”   The   inter­se­seniority   as   contemplated   by Rule 12(3) obviously means inter­se­seniority reflected in the same examination. The two officers from the Fast Track Court having   not   taken   the   same   examination,   Rule   12(3)   is   not technically   applicable   while   judging   inter­se­seniority   of these two officers and other direct recruits. However, in view 55 of   the   directions   of   this   Court   in   Brij   Mohan   Lal’s   case (Supra)  taking these two Fast Track Court officers from Bar in the   regular   cadre   cannot   be   held   faulty.   They   having   been working as Additional District Judges in the Fast Track Court and they having been appointed in the regular cadre although in   the   same   recruitment   year,   their   placement   above   other direct recruits is justified. However, these two officers will be   grouped   along   with   direct   recruits   and   shall   occupy position number 1 and 2 in the direct recruits and others will follow thereafter. 64.  Now we come to the claim of Shri Arunvir Vashista Fast Track Court Judge who was selected by out of turn promotion. Shri Arunvir Vashista was appointed as Fast Track Court Judge consequent to promotion of fifteen officers under Rule 7(3) (a).   The   appointment   and   selection   committee   along   with proposing   fifteen   promotions   under   Rule   7(3)(a)   has   also proposed seven officers to man the Fast Track Courts in which Shri Arunvir Vashista was included. Shri Arunvir Vashista thus occupied   the   Fast   Track   Court   judge   post   in   the   year   2008 itself   and   participated   in   the   limited   departmental competitive examination and secured sixth position on merit. Among the out of turn promotees Shri Arunvir Vashista has been placed at sixth place.  56 65. Shri Arunvir Vashista in his brief written synopsis does not dispute that seniority is to be fixed by the roster points and   irrespective   of   the   fact,   as   to   when   a   person   is recruited. He rightly submits that rules are subsidiary and subservient to the law. He has also placed reliance on order of this Court dated 28.04.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.1022/1989, All India Judges Association and others versus Union of India and others. The Order of this court dated 28.04.2016, is to the following effect: ­ “The second prayer of the petitioner is for direction to the respondents to follow “post based roster” in appointments to the cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.03.2003. The   said   prayer   is   again   based   on   the statement of law as propounded in paragraph 49 of the above referred to decision rendered in All Indian Judges’ Association and Others (Supra).  While stating as to in what manner the 40­point roster is to be determined, this Court   directed   that   appropriate   Rules   and methods should be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States wherever necessary by   31.03.2003.   When   this   application   was moved, initially on behalf of the High Court, learned   Standing   Counsel   took   notice   and submitted that in the High Court a Committee has been constituted which is deliberating on this issue and, therefore, he will be able to report to this Court in a week’s time. It is now pointed out by Mr.Patil, learned senior counsel   for   the   applicant(s)   that   the   34 point roster has been drawn by the High Court based   on   the   cadre   strength   providing   for different points  applicable to the  promotes by way of limited competitive examination as well   as   for   direct   recruits   in   the   entry 57 level   District/Additional   District   and Sessions   Judge.  It   is   also   brought   to   our notice that appropriate Rules have also been drawn   by   the   High   Court   which   has   been th notified   by   the   State   Government   on   16 March, 2004.”” 66.  The Order of this Court dated 28.04.2006 re­enforces the directions given by this Court in All India Judges’ Case dated 21.03.2002. 67.  It   was   contended   on   behalf   of   Shri   Arunvir   Vashista before the Recruitment and Promotion Committee that although in the merit list of out of turn promotion, he is at serial No. 6 but he being the only officer who was working officer as presiding officer of the Fast Track Court on ad­hoc basis, he is   “entitled   to   be   absorbed   and   remained   promoted   to   the post.” There is no denial that Shri Arunvir Vashista has been regularly   promoted   under   Rule   7(3)(b)   and   continues   his substantive   promotion.   When   the   roster   is   applicable,   the seniority has to be fixed by the roster point. As per Rule 12(2)   the   inter­se­seniority   of   the   out   of   turn   promoted officers shall be “in the order of merit as is determined by the   High   Court”.   Thus,   seniority   position   of   Shri   Arunvir Vashista   among   the   out   of   turn   promotees   has   to   be   in accordance with the merit. His position among the out of turn promotees   has   thus   rightly   been   shown   as   serial   no.6   with 58 which no infirmity can be found. We thus conclude that all Fast Track Court judges who were taken into the regular cadre in different streams have been rightly placed in the seniority list amongst their stream to which no exception can be taken. OUR CONCLUSIONS: 68. The tentative seniority list was prepared on the basis of continuous length of service, hence, all promotee officers who th th had   joined   on   27 /28   February,   2008   have   been   shown   at serial no.1 to 14. Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Fast Track   Court   Judges   from   Bar   who   were   appointed   in   regular cadre w.e.f. 01.08.2008 have been shown at serial no.15 and 16. From Serial No.17 to 24 were out of turn promotees in block and thereafter Serial No.25 to 35, direct recruits were placed in block. The final tentative seniority list has been approved by the committee after considering the objections. It is   reflected   in   its   report   dated   11.08.2015.   Full   Court approved the report dated 11.08.2015, hence, final seniority list was issued on 24.12.2015. Final seniority list was same as tentative seniority list. The Division Bench of the High Court deciding the writ petitions challenging the seniority list has held: i)   roster   shall   be   applicable   in   determination   of seniority. 59 ii) fifteen promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota. iii) Promotion of fifteen promotees under Rule 7(3) has to   be   treated   as   ad­hoc   promotion   and   they   shall   be placed at the bottom of seniority. 69. The   Writ   Petitions   were   allowed   by   Division   Bench.   In accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench only change in   the   seniority   list   was   to   displace   the   promotees   from serial no.1 to 14 and to place it in the seniority list below direct recruits. The division bench judgment of the High Court is under challenge before us.  70.     In   view   of   the   foregoing   discussion,   we   come   to   the following conclusions: ­ 1)   Promotion   of   fifteen   officers   under   Rule   7(3)(a) cannot be held to be beyond their quota. 2) The promotion of fifteen officers cannot be said to be ad­hoc nor they can be directed to be put  at the bottom of the seniority list. 3) The High Court even though accepted the principle that roster   is   applicable   in   the   seniority   but   in   the operative portion of the judgment in paragraph 208 did 60 not issue any direction to re­cast the seniority as per the roster given in the Appendix­B which is an apparent error committed by the High Court. 4) Rule 2007 having been brought in place to give effect to   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   All   India   Judges association   case,   (2002)   4   SCC   247,   w hile  interpreting the Rules 2007 the direction issued by this court have to be   kept   in   mind   and   rules   cannot   be   interpreted   in   a manner   so   as   to   violate   the   directions   issued   by   this Court in the above judgment. 5) Rule 7(4) read with Appendix­B has to be read in the light of direction of this Court in All India’s case and harmonious   construction   of   the   rule   clearly   indicates that roster which has been expressly made applicable for filling   the   post   of   all   the   three   streams   shall   be applicable while determining the seniority. Reliefs: ­ 71.  In view of foregoing discussion, the seniority list dated 24.12.2015   is   to   be   set   aside.   After   setting   aside   the seniority list, two courses are open. Firstly, to remit this matter to the High Court again to re­cast the seniority list as per our direction and secondly, to finalize seniority list 61 in this judgment itself. We choose to adopt the second course for two reasons: a)   Already   period   of   three   years   has   elapsed   when   the tentative seniority list was published. Finalisation of seniority as early as possible is essential and necessary for administration of justice. b)   There   is   no   dispute   regarding   inter­se­seniority   of the promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) and issue pertaining to inter­se­seniority   of   out   of   turn   promotees   and   direct recruits have already been finalized by us. Only exercise which is to be undertaken is to place officers of three streams   in   accordance   with   the   roster   as   indicated   in Appendix­B. After placing the officers of three streams, the seniority position as per roster comes as follows:

62

63

72.  It is further relevant to note that in view of judgment of   this   Court   in   ( 2010)   15   SCC   17o ,   All   India   Judges Association,  quota of 25 percent for out of turn promotees has been   reduced   as   10   percent   w.e.f.   01.01.2011.   The   present seniority dispute being related to recruitment held in 2008, the   reduction   in   quota   may   not   be   relevant   in   the   present case. 64 73.  In view of foregoing conclusions all appeals are allowed in following manner: ­ 1) The Division Bench judgment of the High Court so far as   it   holds   that   roster   is   applicable   in   the determination   of   seniority   of   members   of   superior judicial service is upheld. 2) The judgment of the Division bench of the High Court holding   that   fifteen   promotees   under   Rule   7(3)(a)   were beyond the quota and shall take position at the bottom of the seniority list is set aside. 3) The seniority list dated 24.12.2014 is set aside. The list of 35 officers arranged as per Roster as indicated above   shall   be   treated   as   final   Seniority   list   of   the officers recruited in the year 2008. 74. The parties shall bear their own cost. ..........................J. ( A.K. SIKRI ) ..........................J.     ( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 03, 2018.