RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to stay the process of filling up 34 posts of Additional District Judges by promoti0n through Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the Sub -Judges. i.e., Civil Judge (Senior Division) possessing five years experience or more, scheduled to be held on 31.8.2008 on the sole ground that the respondents have disturbed the quota of promotion on the post of Additional District Judges by assigning more posts in the quota of Civil Judge (Senior Division), i.e., Subordinate Judges, leaving no posts to be filled up by the direct recruits, which is clearly contrary to the ratio of the judgment and order delivered in the matter of All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2002)4 SCC 247 commonly known as All India Judges Association Case. The petitioners have further prayed that until the confirmation of services of the petitioners in the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Cadre, the examination, i.e., Limited Competitive Examination for promotion from amongst the Subordinate Judges working for five years or more should not be held. However, in course of arguments the counsel for the petitioners merely pressed that the quota assigned for the Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior Division) scheduled to be held on 31.8.2008, which was to be held in pursuance to the notification available on the High Court Website was fit to be quashed and set aside as the same was contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court issued in the All India Judges Association Case.

(2.) IT would be relevant to refer that the Supreme Court in the matter of All India Judges Association Case had directed that the promotion to the Higher Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges shall be made by following the roster principle as approved by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabbarwal's case vide (1992)2 SCC 745 which was to be made in the ratio of 50:25:25, meaning thereby 50% of the available posts had to be filled up by the promotees on the basis of merit -cum -seniority and the left over 50% had to be divided by allocating 25% of the posts to the direct recruits and another 25% posts exclusively on merit to be adjudged by conducting Limited Competitive Examination from the rank of Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior Division) of five years experience or more. The Supreme Court had further clearly directed that this rule would apply prospectively and for this purpose, the concerned States, if necessary, were also directed to introduce amendment in the Rules prescribed for filling up the posts. Pursuant to this order, the State of Jharkhand, introduced amendment in the Jharkhand Subordinate Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001, which came into effect on 20.8.2004, following the ratio of 50% quota by promotees on the basis of seniority -cum -merit, 25% exclusively on merit to be adjudged through limited Competitive Examination and the remaining 25% by direct recruits on the basis of competitive examination comprising written plus viva voce.

(3.) THE question, which has now been raised in this writ petition, is only to the extent that the 42 posts of Additional District Judges, which had to be filled up by following the roster system, as per the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association case, have to be bifurcated in the ratio of 25:25, as the quota of promotees on the basis of seniority -cum -merit had already been filled up as indicated hereinbefore and hence, the left over posts had to be divided equally, meaning thereby that 50% posts having already been filled up by the promotees on the basis of merit -cum -seniority, the balance 50% posts had to be filled up in the ratio of half and half, i.e., 25% posts could be filled up by the direct recruits and the remaining 25% posts from the rank of Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination. But, the respondents issued a notification on the internet indicating that the entire 34 posts as also all vacancies which were to accrue in future, were to be filled up by conducting Limited Competitive Examination in which the Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior Division) alone were held eligible to apply and no post was left to be filled up by following the process of direct recruitment clearly disturbing the roster system.