RAMCHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard counsel for the parties and we have also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court, respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE real grievance of the petitioners is that a certain proportion of posts in the cadre of Addl. District & Sessions Judge is to be filled up directly from the Bar, while the remaining posts are to be filled up by promotion. Every year vacancies occur in the aforesaid cadre, and if the vacancies that occur are filled up regularly, neither promotees nor the direct recruits can have a grievance, because the proportion in which the posts have to be filled up is determined by law. The real grievance arises if the vacancies are not filled up each year and are carried forward to be filled up in later years. Unfortunately after the year 1979 for almost a decade, the vacancies meant for direct recruits were not filled up regularly with the result that a large number of direct recruits, were appointed in the year 1991 and thereafter in the year 1997. In the year 1991 as many as 32 direct recruits were appointed while in the year 1997, 54 direct recruits have been appointed. The heart -burning arises on account of the fact that normally the members of the Bar directly appointed are younger in age than the judicial officers who are eligible for promotion to the cadre of Addl. District & Sessions Judge. If large number of direct recruits en block are appointed earlier, and consequently become senior to the promotees promoted thereafter, the chances of promotion of the promotees to the higher post of District & Sessions Judge are reduced, because by the time the senior direct recruits are promoted, most of the promotees retire from service. It is submitted before us that as many as 54 direct recruits have been appointed in the year 1997 though the vacancies relate to earlier years. Unfortunately after the year 1979 direct recruits were not being recruited regularly with the result that number of posts to be filled up by direct recruitment accumulated, and they were filled up in one year. If the proportion of posts meant for direct recruits is considered in a sense to be their quota, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we must hold that the quota rule had broken down. To that extent the promotees benefitted in the earlier years as they were promoted in these years while no direct recruitment took place.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the judicial officers who were appointed in the 15th batch as Munsifs, have become eligible for promotion to the posts of Addl. District Sessions Judge. They were initially appointed in the service in the year 1975 and many of them would retire by the year 2002. Though many of them have since been appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge, most of them rank junior to the direct recruits. It is, therefore, submitted that so far as the officers of the 15th batch are concerned, some preference may be shown in their favour in the matter of promotion to the higher post of District and Sessions Judge. The submission cannot be accepted because in point of time, if the direct recruits have been appointed as Addl. District and Sessions Judge before the promoted judicial officers, their seniority cannot be adversely affected, and no preference can be given to the promotees in the matter of appointment as District & Sessions Judge by curtailing the benefit which has accrued to the directly recruited -officers by reason of their earlier appointment and consequent seniority.