RAJEEV BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After pronouncing dissenting verdicts, Ld. Division Bench could not state the points of difference in terms of clause 26 of Letters Patent, giving a cause to the 5th respondent to come up before this Court under Rule 5 of the Appellate Side Rules for the High Court of Himachal Pradesh read with Clause 26 of Letters Patent Constituting the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, and as made applicable to this Court, seeking to declare the reference to the third Judge as incomplete, and thus, return it for framing a proper reference on the points of difference between the divergent views, and in the alternative refer the matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice to pass necessary orders for constituting a full bench in terms of Rule 5 of Appellate Side Rules for the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The main question raised in the writ petitions relates to inter-se seniority dispute amongst three streams of H.P. Higher Judicial Service, i.e.,

(3.) The Petitioners/Appellants' grievance is that the direct recruits have exceeded their quota, and thus their appointment dehors the H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2004. Such an appointment would not confer any rights upon the respondents 3 to 6, and they cannot claim their seniority due to the reasons that the appointment itself exceeded their quota prescribed in the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. UOI, (2002) 4 SCC 247.