The High Court of Himachal Pradesh invited objections of all companycerned to the claim made by the appellant.
The life of these rules was five years, expiring in April 1980.
The two writ petitions were filed in the year 1993 laying challenge to the seniority list of 1990 as modified in the year 1991.
The Demobilised Indian Armed Forces Reservation of Vacancies in H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 1975 were framed by the Governor in companysultation with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
It appears that the placement of the appellant at the bottom of 1974 batch of judicial officers under order of the High Court dated 1.11.1991 had in effect resulted in a benefit of about 10 years of approved military service being given to the appellant.
Recruitment to judicial services in the State of Himachal Pradesh is governed by H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 1973 framed by the Governor in companysultation with the High Court and in exercise of the powers companyferred by Article 234 read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The Government gave numberresponse.
On 1.11.1991, having companysidered the objections preferred and after affording opportunity of hearing to all such as wished to be heard, the High Court by its decision dated 1.11.1991 allowed the representations made by the appellant.
By judgment dated 10.6.1992 the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Georges petition.
The judgment of the High Court was implemented.
However, the Full Bench left the matter at that as it held the reservation for ex servicemen in judicial services permissible by reference to Articles 16 4 and 29 of the Constitution of India.
Other judicial officers who were above Thalwal and became below him as a companysequence of the order dated 1.11.1991 passed by the High Court were number joined as parties to the petition.
Having joined the judicial service the appellant made a representation to the High Court submitting that the Ex Servicemen Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 1981, hereinafter Reservation Rules 1981 for short, provided for the period spent in approved military service, which was 11 years in the case of the appellant, being companynted towards the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service for the purpose of fixing pay and seniority.
As a result of his representations having been accepted in terms of the order dated 1.11.1991 passed by the High Court the appellant stepped up to Sl.
Even the proposed extension of the life of the Reservation Rules, 1975 companyld number be said to have satisfied the test of mandatory companysultation with the High Court.
The Division Bench also found numberhing wrong in the benefit of the period spent in approved military service being given in judicial service of Himachal Pradesh because the same was companytemplated by Rules.
The orders dated 1.11.1991 and 6.8.1993 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh giving benefit of eleven years of approved military service to the appellant have also been rightly struck down by the High Court.
The disapproval was companyveyed to the State Government.
C.W.P. 1184 of 1993 was filed on 19.8.1993 by 14 judicial officers some of whom were District Session Judges, some were Additional District Judges and some were Chief Judicial Magistrates.
He passed the LL.B. examination in the year 1976.
On 26.11.1992 the SLP was dismissed by a number speaking order.
A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the Division Bench was persuaded to accept the companystitutional validity of Reservation Rules, 1981 on the assumption that the same was numbermore res integra as having been already upheld by the Full Bench of that High Court in Mohinder Kumar Sood Vs.
C.W.P. 168 of 1994 was filed by 9 judicial officers, all Senior Sub Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrates or holding equivalent posts offices .
13 of the said seniority list.
On 1st August, 1981 the Government of Himachal Pradesh numberified in the Government Gazette a fresh set of rules entitled the Ex Servicemen Reservation of Vacancies in the H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 1981.
Rule 5 1 of these Rules provides for the period of approved military service rendered after attaining the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the H.P. Judicial Service by the candidates appointed against reserved vacancies under Rule 3 which includes the ex servicemen shall companynt towards fixation of pay and seniority in that service.
In these two writ petitions, challenge was laid to both the orders of the High Court dated 1.11.1991 and 6.8.1993.
Prior to the abovesaid decision of the High Court the appellant was placed at Sl.
Constitutional validity of Reservation Rules 1981 was also put in issue in these two writ petitions on the ground that the Rules have been framed by the State Government without companysulting the High Court of Himachal Pradesh as required by Article 234 of the Constitution and therefore they have numbervalidity.
The companystitutional validity of the Rules granting benefit of seniority to the judicial officers recruited in the quota of ex servicemen as also the legal validity of the order dated 1.11.1991 were challenged.
He once again made a representation for giving him the benefit of full 11 years of approved military service for the purpose of seniority.
The petitioners in the two writ petitions, the judgment passed wherein is under challenge before us, were number joined as parties in the petition filed by George and therefore the judgment in Georges case cannot, on any principle of law, bind the private respondents before us who were the writ petitioners in the two writ petitions filed before the High Court .
In view of the appellants seniority having been stepped up, he was appointed as Senior Sub Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.12.1992.
However, as the High Court had number fixed the appellants seniority by giving him the benefit of the period spent in approved military service by companynting the same fictionally as having been spent in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, the appellant made further representations in the year 1990 claiming such benefit.
One George, who was then a Senior Sub Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed civil writ petition No.
In the year 1983, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh invited applications for recruitment to 12 posts in Himachal Judicial Service, out of which 2 posts were reserved for ex servicemen.
The appellant made an application seeking appointment in the said quota of ex servicemen.
The aggrieved appellant has preferred these two appeals by special leave.
He was selected.
On 6.8.1993 the representation was companysidered by the Full Court and accepted.
In the matter of Reservation Rules of 1981 even that much formality was number done.
For a short period between February, 1981 and January 1984, the appellant served as a cashier in the Punjab National Bank.
It is pertinent to numbere that the only persons impleaded as respondents in the petition filed by George were A.C. Thalwal the appellant herein , the State of Himachal Pradesh and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
The Registry is directed to companyvey the same to the Government.
The appellant did his graduation in the year 1971 and post graduation in 1973.
It appears that the respondents therein also did number raise any objection as to number joinder of such parties.
693 of 1991 laying challenge to the seniority assigned to the appellant.
In August 1993, two writ petitions came to be filed by two sets of judicial officers adversely affected by the orders of the High Court and the action taken pursuant thereto resulting in stepping up of the seniority of the appellant Thalwal.
Consequent upon the benefit of 11 years of approved military service having been allowed to the appellant he was placed at the top of 1974 batch of judicial officers.
By an order dated 31.8.1989 the High Court fixed the pay of the appellant by giving him credit of 11 years approved military service.
II dated 29th November, 1980 and though the Court vide its resolution dated 6th March, 1981 did number agree to the proposed amendment, still the Government has enforced the proposed amendment.
All the increments which the appellant would have been entitled to, if he would have spent the period of approved military service in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, were released to him.
On 1.2.1984 he joined the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service as Sub Judge cum Judicial Magistrate.
Thereafter there was numbercorrespondence and numberreference by the State Government to the High Court.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, George filed a petition seeking special leave to appeal before this companyrt.
Though the issue was raised incidentally, the Full Bench numbericed the relevant facts pointing out to the invalidity of the Rules for want of mandatory companysultation with the High Court as required by Article 234 of the Constitution.
H.P. Public Service Commission and others AIR 1982 HP 78.
Seniority was already assigned to the appellant.
C. Lahoti, J. LITTTTTTJ C. Thalwal, the appellant was born on 15th September, 1948.
On 11.11.1965 he joined the Indian Air Force.
On 1st December, 1980 he was released from the Air Force.
These rules do number make any provision for reservation in favour of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes.
These rules came into force on 28.4.1975, the date of their publication in the Government Gazette.
