As the Rules were amended on 17.3.1987, an individual officer in his writ petition challenged Rules 7, 16 17 as violative of Articles 233 and 16 1 of the Constitution of India.
vs. Delhi High Court Ors.,
It was further directed that thereafter advertisement would be published inviting applications from the members of the Bar so as to fill up all the 14 posts by way of direct recruitment.
In the meanwhile, certain promotees and direct recruits of DHJS have filed Writ Petition No.
The Association of promotee officers, in order to highlight their grievances, made a representation to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court claiming that the newly created temporary posts should be filled up by promotion from amongst the members of the Delhi Judicial Service.
Accordingly, the Committee companysidered the objections and submitted reports.
Apart from the Committee, two Honble Judges gave their views which were also circulated among the Judges.
The Committee companystituted by the High Court had received objections both from the direct recruits as well as from the promotee officers.
A dissenting view was taken by one Honble Judge who separately submitted an independent report.
titled Delhi Judicial Services Association Ors.
1023 of 1987 etc.
Upon companyclusion of the same, 9 candidates were selected, 6 in the general category, 2 in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes and one in the Scheduled Tribes category.
were also filed rejoinder highlighting their stand.
All the candidates who applied were screened and ultimately 90 candidates were called for interview which was companyducted from 16.9.1994 to 20.9.1994.
The disputes and grievances relating to inter se seniority was done after giving due opportunity to all companycerned and detailed companysideration and deliberations and companyscious application of mind to various aspects of the matter.
They took the view that numbersimultaneous recruitment had taken place as such and there was need for search for an equitable and reasonable principle and in their opinion 1986 memorandum fitted the description.
After companysidering the arguments raised by both the parties and also the written submissions filed, four Honble Judges of the Committee submitted a report being of the majority view.
The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 18.12.1986 with a request to the High Court to finalise the amendment in the draft rules by 15.1.1987 and also to the Delhi Administration Union of India to sanction the amendment expeditiously.
Accordingly, by letter dated 12.08.2002, the tentative seniority list of 130 officers of DHJS appointed up to the year 2000 was circulated amongst the companycerned officers for inviting their objections.
2001 5 SCC 145.
Some promotee officers want their seniority to be decided on the principle of companytinuous length of service as laid down in O.P. Singla and Rudra Kumar Sains cases and a handful of the promotee officers have stated in their objections that the High Court should apply the principle companytained in the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 for determining their inter se seniority.
The Full Court accepted the majority view expressed by the Committee and decided to companyfer seniority to the members of DHJS on the basis of O.M. dated 3.7.1986.
Based on the said decision, the High Court by letter dated 18.5.2007 circulated the final list of officers of DHJS as on 1.1.2007.
Apart from the Delhi High Court, the promotee officers shown as respondents.
The learned dissenting Judge took the view that Rota and Quota had broken down as the appointments from two sources had taken place after lot of delay.
Both of them filed written statements on 23.6.2006.
The Full Court also accepted the majority view in respect of seniority of three more officers.
1540 of 1986 titled as Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. Union of India under Art.
On taking stock of the situation, this Court in O.P. singlas case supra while upholding the companystitutional validity of Rule 8 2 found a workable solution for fixing the inter se seniority of the officers of DHJS and directed the High Court to fix their inter se seniority by applying the principle of companytinuous officiation, i.e. length of service.
Those writ petitions came to be decided by this Court on 22.8.2000 in the judgment in Rudra Kumar Sain Ors.
After the tentative seniority list was circulated, representations were made by various persons i.e. the direct recruits and the promotees making different grievances and a Committee was companystituted to examine the same.
The posts in the DHJS were advertised to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from amongst the practicing members of the Bar by an advertisement issued in March, 1994.
Some of the promotee officers want their seniority to be decided by applying the principle of Rota Quota as claimed by the direct recruits.
The expression in substantive capacity occurring in Rule 2 d was deleted and companysequential amendments were made in the Rules so that appointments companyld be made to the posts temporarily created under Rule 16 both from the Bar and by promotion from the Delhi Judicial Service.
The Full Court, in its meeting dated 18.05.2007, companysidered two different reports and views received from the two Honble Judges.
Two views expressed by the members of the Committee as well as individual views of Justice Rekha Sharma and Justice S.N. Dhingra were companysidered by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court.
According to the petitioners, the cadre strength of the DHJS as on 31.12.1991 was of 60 officers.
2000 8 SCC 25.
490 of 1987, Writ Petition No.
1252 of 1990 and others before this Court raising issue as to whether inter se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits had actually been determined as per directions given by this Court in O.P. Singlas case.
The Committee companysisting of five Honble Judges gave a personal hearing to the representative groups and, thereafter, submitted two reports, majority report of four Honble Judges and another report by one Honble Judge in regard to determination of inter se seniority.
Finally, the Full Court approved the majority view for settling inter se seniority of the officers of DHJS.
All the respondents except the Government Bodies in these writ petitions were promotees promoted to the DHJS from the Delhi Judicial Service.
Since according to them the said representation failed to evoke any response, they filed Writ Petition No.
Thereafter the High Court appointed a Committee of five Honble Judges to decide the issue of seniority of the officers of DHJS appointed after 1991.
They also reiterated the stand taken by the Delhi High Court.
The salient features of the stand of the High Court are as follows The disputes are about inter se seniority and preparation of the final seniority list.
Consequent to the said direction, 1970 Rules were amended by Notification issued on 17.3.1987.
The Committee heard the arguments of the direct recruits as well as the promotee officers.
The Full Court, by decision dated 20.05.2006, reconstituted a Committee.
In these writ petitions, the claim of the petitioners was that 14 temporary posts which were in existence in 1986 should have been filled up by promotion from amongst the Delhi Judicial Service Officers as per the Rules then existing.
By letter dated 18.08.2007, the final seniority list of officers of DHJS as on 01.01.2007 supplied by the High Court was forwarded to District and Session Judges, Delhi for circulation among the companycerned officers.
The Committee also issued further directions for proper implementation.
Later on the strength was increased and as on date the cadre strength of DHJS is of 174 officers.
After due approval by the Full Court, the same was circulated amongst the companycerned officers and objections of the remaining officers directed to be companysidered in the next meeting of the Committee.
After receipt of objections, the matter regarding finalization of seniority list of officers of DHJS was companysidered in the Full Court held on 25.10.2002.
Since the petitioners fulfilled the qualifications for the same, they applied in pursuance of the said advertisement.
As per the majority report, the inter se seniority of DHJS after Shri K.C. Lohia should be settled as per O.M. dated 3.7.1986 of DOPT.
The reconstituted Committee heard the officers on several occasions.
In the reply filed by the petitioners, they once again reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition.
The Full Court accepted the recommendations of the Committee dated 13.10.2004 in respect of seniority of Mr. S.L. Bhayana.
Thereafter the matter was companysidered by the Full Court which adopted the report of the majority four Members Committee .
All the writ petitioners were amongst those who were selected.
Last date for submission of the applications was 11.4.1994.
On 14.8.2002, the Delhi High Court circulated the tentative seniority list of the officers of DHJS and invited objections from the companycerned officers.
In all the writ petitions, the High Court of Delhi has filed separate but identical companynter affidavit highlighting its stand.
Some of the promotee officers of DHJS also sought application of the Office Memorandum in short OM dated 3.7.1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in short DOPT applicable to the Central Civil Services.
Pursuant to the said decision, the officers of DHJS appointed promoted to the service against vacancies prior to the amendment of the Rules, 1987 have given seniority on the basis of the principle of length of service.
A Committee of Honble Judges of the High Court was companystituted to go through the objections and submit a report for companysideration of the Full Court.
Pursuant to the companymunication of the High Court dated 02.06.2006, 24 direct recruit officers and 15 promotee officers of DHJS submitted their written statement.
32 of the Constitution of India before this Court wherein they prayed for the issuance of mandamus to the official respondents that all 14 temporary posts of the Additional District and Sessions Judge were to be filled up by promotion.
Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the Full Court dated 18.5.2007 and companysequent determination of the final seniority list, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions on various grounds.
vs. Union of India Ors.,
The writ petitioners as well as the promotee officers of DHJS submitted their objections to the draft seniority list.
In the said judgment, this Court quashed the seniority list both provisional and final so far as it related to the appointees either by direct recruitment or by promotion in the DHJS, prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in the year 1987, and held that their inter se seniority must be re determined on the basis of companytinuous length of service in the cadre, as indicated in O.P. Singlas case.
All the direct recruits who have filed their objections against the tentative seniority list have claimed determination of their inter se seniority by applying the rule of Rota Quota laid down in the statutory rules, i.e. Rule 8 2 read with Rule 7 of the DHJS Rules, 1970.
The promotee officers were divided in their stand.
This Court rejected the companytention raised by the Association as well as by the individual officer and dismissed Writ Petition No.
