The respondents and the appellant were all recruited as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judges.
Two different States of Punjab and Haryana were formed.
On 24 April, 1967 the respondent Vohra was promoted and appointed as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi against a permanent post.
The respondent Sidhu was appointed as an officiating or temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15 January, 1966 in the State of Punjab.
District Judges in the Union Territory of Delhi and it was also known that out of the eleven posts of District judges and Addl.
The respondent Sidhu was appointed as a Subordinate Judge on 27 October, 1948 in the former Pepsu State.
District Judges.
The Delhi High Court was established on 31 October, 1966.
The Respondent No.
2 to 4 while functioning either as 1st Addl.
On or about 2/3 November, 1966 a select list of officers to be recruited to the Delhi Judicial Service showing the order of seniority was prepared.
The framework in the present case was the Judicial Service to which each of these officers belonged at the time of the initial companystitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
The seniority of the respondents and the appellant depends on the companystruction of Rule 6 3 of the Delhi Rules.
The Central Government in exercise of its powers under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 allocated the respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain to Punjab and the appellant to the State of Haryana with effect from 1 November, 1966.
The appellant challenged the numberification dated 15 May, 1971 determining the respondents K. S. Sidhu, O. N. Vohra and J. D. Jain to be senior to the appellant in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
The use of the expression cadres in companytrast to the expression cadre which is used in Delhi Judicial Service Rules shows that recruitment is from two distinct cadres of Additional District and Sessions Judges and District and Sessions Judges.
In Rule 6 3 the companycentration is on the length of service rendered by the candidates appointed at the initial companystitution.
At the initial companystitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service it appears that the respondents and the appellant were all rendering service as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
First, the expression the length of service rendered by them in the cadres to which they belong means that the length of service has to be companysidered only with reference to the substantive appointment to permanent posts which alone were included in the service on 17 May, 1971, which is the relevant date for the purpose of determining seniority.
District Sessions Judge against a permanent post with effect from 11 8 1967 vide Annexure R 4/3 at page 191 of the Paper Book.
The respondents Vohra and Jain are number yet companyfirmed as District Judges.
The appellant was also made first the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge on 12 October, 1966.
2 4 Before 1st November, 1966 when the re organization of Punjab under the Punjab Re organization Act, 1966 took place, the Petitioner admittedly ranked junior to the Respondent Nos.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 21st March, 1972 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi, in Civil Writ No.
The yardstick for determining seniority was length of service rendered by these persons as District Judges and Addl.
The respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain and the appellant were shown one after another in the order of seniority.
Cadre is a permanent establishment.
The language of this rule was number adopted by those framing the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules.
The respondent Sidhu was companyfirmed on 22 February, 1971 as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Punjab.
There were 11 such persons.
On 22 February 1971 the respondent Sidhu was companyfirmed as District Sessions Judge in his parent State of Punjab whilst he was still functioning in Delhi as Additional District and Sessions Judge on deputation.
On 15 May, 1971 the Administrator of Delhi issued a Gazette Notification appointing substantively the respondents and the appellant to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service on its initial companystitution.
In order to examine the companytentions of the appellant it is necessary to appreciate as to why and for whose benefit these Delhi Rules were framed.
Therefore the appellant is senior to the respondent Sidhu because the appellant is companyfirmed earlier in point of time than the respondent Sidhu.
The respondents were appointed prior to the appellant as Additional District and Sessions Judge.
On 1 September, 1971 the appellant made a representation to the High Court of Delhi, against the fixation of his seniority and claimed seniority over the respondents Sidhu, Vohra and Jain.
Both of them belong to the cadres of District Judges.
On 17 May, 1971 the appellant and the respondents assumed charge as Additional District and Sessions Judges, Delhi as members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
Therefore, they cannot be senior to the appellant.
Senior Sub Judge or Addl.
They belong to the cadres of Additional District and Sessions Judges.
A select list was prepared by the High Court of Delhi in November 1966 showing the names of the Judicial Officers proposed to be recruited to me Delhi Judicial services to be formed giving their order of seniority as admitted by the Petitioner at page 217 of the Paper Book Vol.
District and Sessions Judge in Delhi on deputation from the State of Haryana till 17 5 71 when they were substantively appointed to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.,
The expression to which they belong attached to the word Cadres companynotes belonging to any of the aforesaid two cadres, by whatever name called in different states.
The use of the word cadres in plural was deliberate because in the companyresponding seniority in Delhi Judicial Service Rules which were framed and numberified simultaneous the word Cadre has been used in singular.
The word belong in the expression cadres to which they belong means that a person is a member of the cadre in a substantive appointment against a permanent post.
R. Gupta and M. V. Goswami, for respondent number 4.
District Sessions Judge against a temporary post created by me Government of India on 25 11 67 vide Annexure R 4/5 at page 195 or the taper book vol.
The appellant was companyfirmed on 2 October, 1970, as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana.
Rule 6 1 of the Delhi Rules states that for initial recruitment to the service which means the Delhi Higher Judicial Service the Administrator shall, in companysultation with the High Court, appoint persons to the service substantively from amongst the a District Judges and Additional District Judges functioning as such in the Union Territory of Delhi on deputation from other State b District Judges and Additional District Judges whose names may be reconunended by their respective States for appointment.
I Part.
District Judges in theUnion Territory of Delhi who were on deputation from other States to opt foror join the Delhi Higher judicial Service.
Besides at the date of the promulgation of the Rules and at the date of the initial Constitution of the Service.
On 2 October, 1970 the appellant was companyfirmed as District Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana whilst he was still functioning as Additional District Sessions Judge on deputation.
There were altogether five permanent and six temporary posts of District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges.
Second, the length of service rendered by the candidates in the cadres to which they belong at the time of their initial recruitment to the service can have reference only to the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges and the cadre of District and Sessions Judges from which recruitment was made in accordance with Rule 6 1 .
The respondents Vohra and Jain were appointed as Subordinate Judges on 4 August, 1950 and the appellant was appointed on 7 August, 1950.
2 and 3.
District judges only five were permanent and the remaining were temporary.
On 23 October, 1971 the High Court rejected the representation of the appellant.
I white the Respondent number 2 was promoted and appointed as an officiating Addl.
3 was promoted and appointed as art Addl.
The appellant and the respondents were recruited to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules hereinafter referred to as the Delhi Rules.
On 27 August, 1970 the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 were promulgated.
The respondent Sidhu was transferred to Delhi and appointed on 1 May, 1967 as Additional District and Sessions Judge on deputation.
2 to 4.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent Vohra was appointed on 17 March, 1967 as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi.
They formed one category of equivalent cadre and thereby necessitating the use of the word cadre in singular in seniority rule 11.
District judges functioning as such in the Union Territory of Delhi who belonged to the Higher judicial service that is who were companyfirmed on permanent posts in that service.
In the said select list the Petitioner was shown junior to Respondent Nos.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India, R. Sachthey and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No.
The word Cadres used in plural has significance and indicates that there must be more cadres than one or at least two cadres.
On 1 November, 1966 the State of Punjab was reorganised.
for respondent No.
2 were in the cadre of permanent District Judges and hence their seniority is to be with reference to the dates on which they became permanent District Judges.
District ,Sessions Judge against a temporary post in Punjab on 15 1 66 and transferred to Delhi on deputation on 1 5 67.
District Judges.
the Respondent No.
In, companystruing Rule 6 3 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules,1970 it is important to bear in mind that these Rules were framed primarily to enable those functioning as District Judges and Addl.
The Petitioner was promoted and appointed as Addl.
The respondents Vohra and Jain and the appellant were selected and appointed as Subordinate Judges in the Provincial Civil Service Judicial Branch in the Punjab State on the result of the companypetitive examination.
3 4 were still in lower cadre of Subordinate Judges known as Punjab Civil Service Judicial Branch they must rank junior to the appellant.
District Judges in Delhi who, were 11 in number, and out of whom only two or three were permanent District Judges, the framers of the rules must be intending to fix the seniority having regard to the actual length of service rendered as District or Addl.
1211 of 1971.
Rule 9 of Delhi Judicial Rules makes Sub Judges, Law Graduate, Magistrates working in Delhi, member of Civil Judicial Cadres of States whose names had been recommended by the State Government for appointment and members of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Andaman, and Nicobar Islands, Civil Service, who are law graduates, eligible for initial recruitment.
As the Appellant had become permanent earlier, he must rank senior to respondent No.
As respondent Nos.
4 was appointed on 12 10 66 as Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, and was promoted and appointed as temporary Addl.
These Rules were framed for those who were functioning as Additional District and Sessions Judges at Delhi.
District Sessions judge on 24 4 67 against a permanent post vide Annexure 3 at page 147 of the Paper Book.
it was known that there were eleven persons all from Punjab and Haryana functioning as District Judges and Addl.
The appellants companytentions are twofold.
K. Ramamurthi, Shyamla Pappu and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellant.
He bad already been appointed as officiating Additional District and Sessions Judge on 15 January, 1966 in Punjab.
District Judges functioning as such in Delhi and from those whose names were recommended by their respective states.
On that interpretation, the Appellant and Respondent No.
V. Gupte, L. R. Gupta and M. V. Goswami, for respondent number.
The respondent Jain was appointed as Senior Subordinate Judge in Delhi on 12 October, 1966.
it should be held that the seniority shall be in accordance with the actual length of service as Dis trict Additional District Judges functioning as such.
On 11 August, 1967 the respondent Jain was promoted and appointed as temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi against one of the temporary posts.
The words in the cadre to which they belong in Rule 6 3 companyer the cases of permanent as well as temporary Additional District and Ses sions Judges at the time of initial recruitment.
The respondent Jain was given promotion on 23 June, 1967 as Additional District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Punjab in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service while he was still on deputation.
It was companytended on behalf of the respondents that having regard to the fact the Delhi Higher Judicial Service was being companystituted mainly for those who were functioning as Add.
777 of 1973.
On 28 July, 1967 the appellant was given promotion as Additional District Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana while he was still working on deputation as Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi.
Even after 1 11 1966 the Petitioner ranked junior to the Respondents Nos.
