G R LUTHRA Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has had a chequered career and involves a competition regarding seniority between the petitioner G. R. Luthra and respondent No. 3 D. R. Khanna who were simultaneously recruited as members of the Punjab Judicial Service. The case appears to have travelled through various stages both in the High Court and in this court on different aspects. After hearing counsel for the parties in the view that we propose to take in this petition and also because respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit that he would not press this Court for giving any decision regarding his seniority over the petitioner if the submission of respondent No. 3 regarding his appointment under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service is decided against him, it is not necessary of us to give any finding on the scope and ambit of Rule 6 (3) of the Rules.

(2.) IN view of these facts the controversy in this case has been very much narrowed down and the point for decision falls within a very narrow compass. IN order however to understand the question involved, it may be necessary to give a short history and a brief re'sume' of the manner in which the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were appointed and their vertical mobility in the hierarchy through which they had moved up.

(3.) ON the 9/03/1963 the petitioner Luthra was posted at Delhi as Sub-Judge. ON 1/11/1966 by virtue of reorganisation of Punjab, Punjab and Haryana became two separate States and some areas were transferred to Himachal Pradesh. As a result of the aforesaid reorganisation the services of the petitioner Luthra were allocated to the State of Haryana and that of respondent No. 3 Khanna to Punjab, but both the officers continued to be posted at Delhi and were Senior Sub-Judges. ON the same date, namely, 1/11/1966 Delhi High Court was created and came into existence. Shortly thereafter, on 5/11/1966 in a meeting of the Chief Justices of the Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts a list of Judicial Officers to be absorbed in the Judicial Service to be constituted at Delhi was finalished and in the list of the Lower Judicial Service which appears at page 393 of the Paper Book the petitioner Luthra was placed at S. No. 4 whereas respondent No. 3 D. R. Khanna was placed at S. No. 6. Thus, the two High Courts clearly decided that in the new service the petitioner was to rank senior to respondent No. 3. This decision was a logical corollary of the history of the services of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, discussed above. The proceedings of the meeting are contained at pages 392-395 of the Paper Book in which the Courts decided to allocate one District and Sessions Judge for Delhi and 8 Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Higher Judicial Service and 39 Sub-Judges in the Lower Judicial Service. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 at that time fell in the third category. Thus, even though the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had for a short while been allocated to two different States, namely, one was allotted to Punjab and the other to Haryana, but with the coming into existence of the Delhi High Court both of them again joined the same service and their rank and seniority was throughout maintained.