BALASAHEB VISHNU CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5999 of 1983 is Shri B. V. Chavan and the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 6000 of 1983 is Shri A. A. Halbe. The appellants in these two appeals are members of the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra. They were originally appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates First Class in the Junior Branch of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service. Both of them in course of time were promoted in the year 1971 as Assistant Judges in the Senior Branch of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service. When they were both working as Assistant Judges, applications were invited from members of the Bar for filling in five posts of officiating Assistant Judges in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra although the applications could be invited only for the purpose of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 Shri I. G. Shah, Shri B. S. Bhirud, Shri H. H. Kantharia and Shri A. D. Mane along with many others applied for the same. Ultimately respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were selected by the High Court and on the recommendation of the High Court, the Governor appointed them as Assistant Judges as per Government notification dated December 27, 1974, the material part of which read thus:

(2.) Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 accordingly were posted as Assistant Judges in January, 1975. In the list of Assistant Judges which was in force then the appellants were shown at serial Nos. 5 and 6 and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were shown at serial Nos. 25 to 28. Later on by a notification dated February 1, 1977, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were promoted to officiate as District Judges along with one Shri M. M. Sonak but by a notification dated February 5, 1977 which was issued as a corrigendum to the notification dated February 1, 1977, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were shown as having been appointed to officiate as District Judges. The appellants who were working as Assistant Judges from 1971 were not promoted along with respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The appellants who felt aggrieved by the appointment of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay claiming that they should be treated as having been promoted as District Judges on the same date on which respondent No. 2 was appointed and placed above respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the seniority list on ground that they were senior to respondents Nos. 2 to 5 in the cadre of Assistant Judges. The petitions were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment. The appellants have filed these appeals by special leave against the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) The solution to the problem before us depends upon the true meaning of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") which govern the recruitment to the different cadres in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra.