which belongs Shri Rajinder Nath Registrar, Delhi High Himachal A319 Aggarwal Court, New Delhi.
The petitioner was companyfirmed as District and Sessions Judge in his parent State of Haryana on 2nd October, 1970.
3 in claiming seniority over the petitioner.
To begin with, both the petitioner and respondent No.
3 were appointed and their vertical mobility in the hierarchy through which they had moved up.
The letter referred to above was passed by the order of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court.
The order of the Lt.
3 was appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge on 21st February, 1968, but it appears that by a letter dated 22nd March, 1971 written by the Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed to the Accountant General, Punjab, Simla respondent No.
This numberification may be extracted thus In pursuance of the provisions of rule 6 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970 the Administrator of Delhi is pleased to appoint substantively in companysultation with the High Court, the following persons from the States numbered against each, to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service at its initial companystitution with effect from 17 5 71 and in order of seniority indicated Sl.
3 companypeted for entrance to the State Judicial Service of the undivided Punjab.
3 were holding the same post at Delhi.
The petitioner Luthra was appointed as far back as 7th August, 1950 having obtained 4th position in the companypetitive examination and was appointed as Sub Judge against a permanent post.
This representation appears to have been accepted by the High Court on 10th June, 1976 which runs thus I am desired to say that Shri D. R. Khanna a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, at present on deputation as Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal made a representation dated the 25th January, 1972 companyy enclosed requesting that for the reasons stated therein he may be placed above Shri G. R. Luthra in the Gradation List of the officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
3 and according to the second part of the rule since inter se seniority had already been fixed initially, the petitioner would be deemed to be senior to the respondent No.
The petitioner was also appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 25th November, 1967 and while both the petitioner and respondent No.
Thus, even regarding the time of appointment, the petitioner entered the service prior to respondent No.
Shri Fauja Singh Gill Addl.
3 was appointed as Member, Income Tax Tribunal at Jaipur.
Governor Respondent No.
3 is legally erroneous and is quashed as by making respondent No.
Name of the Officer Post held at Present State to No.
3 got a proforma promotion and was temporarily appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judge six months before the petitioner that will number make him senior to the petitioner.
Shortly thereafter, on 5th November, 1966 in a meeting of the Chief Justices of the Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Courts a list of Judicial Officers to be absorbed in the Judicial Service to be companystituted at Delhi was finalised and in the list of the Lower Judicial Service which appears at page 393 of the Paper Book the petitioner Luthra was placed at S. No.
On the 9th March, 1963 the petitioner Luthra was posted at Delhi as Sub Judge.
3 both having been appointed to the same service and having been recruited through the same companypetitive examination.
Shri Kashmir Singh Addl.
Both the petitioner and respondent No.
dated the 15th May, 1971 be made.
This letter is annexed as Annexure 2 appearing at pages 288 89 of the Paper Book.
3 remained terminated due to medical unfitness between 13th March, 1952 to 23rd May, 1956.
3 Khanna to Punjab, but both the officers companytinued to be posted at Delhi and were Senior Sub Judges.
3 and this seniority companyld number be altered.
As we have already stated that both the petitioner and respondent No.
In these circumstances, therefore, merely because respondent No.
Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Raj Punjvani and G. S. Chatterjee for the Petitioner.
District Sessions Judge Delhi on 5 6 1968 and companytinued as Addl.
3 D. R. Khanna was placed at S. No.
Respondent No.
This decision was a logical companyollary of the history of the services of the petitioner and respondent No.
Respondent No.
District Sessi Punjab ons Judge, Delhi.
7 and respondent No.
3 had also taken the same companypetitive examination but obtained a lower position 13th and was appointed as Sub Judge against a temporary post.
The petitioner Luthra was however given benefit of the next below rule as Additional District and Sessions Judge with effect from 28th July, 1967.
As a result of the aforesaid reorganisation the services of the petitioner Luthra were allocated to the State of Haryana and that of respondent No.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl.
I am directed to request that orders of the Administrator may be obtained in this behalf and necessary amendment in Delhi Administrations Notification No.
3 D. R. Khanna was appointed on the 23rd November, 1950 i.e. about 3 1/2 months later.
Unfortunately, the services of the respondent No.
2 Delhi High Court .
Subsequently, both the officers filed companynters, companyy of each one of which is enclosed.
Thus, from inception three important facts are established That the petitioner had obtained a higher position in the companypetitive examination held for entrance to the State Judicial Service whereas respondent No.
3 had for a short while been allocated to two different States, namely, one was allotted to Punjab and the other to Haryana, but with the companying into existence of the Delhi High Court both of them again joined the same service and their rank and seniority was throughout maintained.
3 at that time fell in the third category.
It appears that after the final list under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service was numberified and approved respondent No.
Shri Om Nath Verma DO DO Shri Jagmaner Das Jain DO DO Shri Gulshan Rai Luthra DO Haryana Shri Dev Raj Khanna DO Punjab Thus, this numberification would show that whatever may have been the position prior to the companying into force of the new Service, the petitioner was treated to be senior to respondent No.
Both Shri Khanna and Shri Luthra were heard by a Committee of two Honble Judges who submitted a report which was companysidered on the Administrative Side by the Full Court in its meeting held on 20th May, 1976 and it was decided that in view of Rule 6 3 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1908.
3 had obtained a lower position.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
District Punjab Sessions Judge, Delhi Shri Mohinder Singh Members Punjab Official Punjab Language Legislative Commission, Ministry of Law, Government of India.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
3 was given proforma promotion with effect from 24th June, 1967.
4 whereas respondent No.
On 27 8 1970 Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service Rules were framed by the Lt.
Both the petitioner and respondent No.
This is important because under the Rules and the companyventions the seniority of new recruits is numbermally governed by the place which they occupy in the companypetitive examination.
1 based on the recommendation of the High Court treating the petitioner to be junior to respondent No.
It is true that by virtue of the letter referred to above respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This writ petition has had a chequered career and involves a companypetition regarding seniority between the petitioner G. R. Luthra and Respondent No.
In view of these facts the companytroversy in this case has been very much narrowed down and the point for decision falls within a very narrow companypass.
Thus, the two High Courts clearly decided that in the new Service the petitioner was to rank senior to respondent No.
3, discussed above.
The petitioner Luthra was appointed on the 7th August, 1950 whereas respondent No.
3 filed a representation on the 21st January, 1972 claiming seniority over the petitioner.
402 of 1977.
This was also an important factor which has to be taken into companysideration in order to determine the inter se seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.
On the same date, namely, 1st November, 1966 Delhi High Court was created and came into existence.
3 was number functioning either as District Judge or as Additional District Judge but was on deputation with the Income Tax Tribunal.
After hearing companynsel for the parties in the view that we propose to take in this petition and also because respondent No.
3 was appointed as Addl.
On 9th May, 1967 the petitioner Luthra was appointed as Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi, Respondent No.
This fact is borne out by another circumstance.
1 740 /76 Judl.
The case appears to have travelled through various stages both in the High Court and in this Court on different aspects.
E. C. Agarwala and N. Sachthey for Respondent No.
3 D. Khanna who were simultaneously recruited as members of the Punjab Judicial Service.
Thus, even though the petitioner and respondent No.
3 were thus appointed as members of the Punjab Judicial Service in the undivided Punjab.
3 was reinstated with effect from the date of his appointment, namely, 23rd November, 1950.
So far as Delhi was companycerned before the birth of the Haryana State it used to be a Judicial District of Punjab.
This unfortunate episode seems to be the sheet anchor of the argument of respondent No.
On 1st November, 1966 by virtue of re organisation of Punjab, Punjab and Haryana became two separate States and some areas were transferred to Himachal Pradesh.
3 were practically recruited through the same source and were members of the same Service though for a short period the petitioner was allotted to Haryana and respondent No.
In order however to understand the question involved, it may be necessary to give a short history and a brief resume of the manner in which the petitioner and respondent No.
3 regarding his appointment under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service is decided against him, it is number necessary for us to give any finding on the scope and ambit of Rule 6 3 of the Rules.
K. Sen, U. R. Lalit, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, M. Mudgal and B. L. Verma for Respondent No.
The proforma promotion is related to vacancies in his parent State and has numberhing to do with vacancies or seniority where both were at the relevant time serving.
About two months thereafter i.e. on 17 5 1971 there was a regular numberification initiating the companystitution of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with effect from 17 5 1971 by which in the Higher Service the petitioner was put at S. No.
Governor in companysultation with the Delhi High Court.
3 has filed an affidavit that he would number press this Court for giving any decision regarding his seniority over the petitioner if the submission of respondent No.
On 22 3 1971 Shri Khanna respondent No.
3, however, was companyfirmed as Sub Judge on 5 6 1968 but was companyfirmed as District and Sessions Judge Delhi several years after.
But this gap is of numberconsequences because subsequently his medical unfitness was set aside in appeal and respondent No.
3 at S. No.
The companyments of Shri Luthra on the aforesaid representation of Shri Khanna were obtained.
3 was appointed in the State Judicial Service only against a temporary post.
District and Sessions Judge till 17 5 71.
That while the petitioner Luthra was appointed against a permanent vacancy respondent No.
On the other hand, respondent No.
The proceedings of the meeting are companytained at pages 392 395 of the Paper Book in which the Courts decided to allocate one District and Sessions Judge for Delhi and 8 Additional District and Sessions Judges in the Higher Judicial Service and 39 Sub Judges in the Lower Judicial Service.
