Service law: Judicial service – Seniority – Fixation of – Appointment of Munsiffs by way of direct recruitment on the recommendations of the State Public Service Commission in the State of Jammu & Kashmir (Now Union Territory) – Fixation/determination of inter-se seniority, on the basis of the roster points or in terms of the order of their inter-se merit at the time of their selection – Held: In the case of direct recruitment, the preparation of inter se merit list of the selected candidates is inevitable, even in the absence of an explicit provision in the rule or policy, the recruitment authority cannot place the candidates inter se in the select list under the rule of thumb or by adopting the methodology which is inconsistent with the Arts. 14 and 16 – Inter-se merit list of the selected candidates can be prepared as a combined effect of several factors like written test, objective test, viva-voce and/or other prescribed parameters – Even in a case of promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, seniority by itself is not the only qualification for promotion to a selection post, it will be one of the factors only – Roster system is only for the purpose of ensuring that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process – It has nothing to do with the inter-se seniority among those recruited – High Court rightly held that the seniority should be fixed in accordance with the merit determined by the Public Service Commission and not in accordance with the roster points, thus, order by the High Court not interfered with – Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 2005 – r. 5 – Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 – r. 42 – Jammu & Kashmir Reservation Rules 2005 – Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act 2004 – Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 – Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir – Art 111 – Constitution of India – Arts. 235, 14 and 16.
Retrospective operation: Judgment, when retrospective in operation – Held: Law declared by the court will have retrospective effect, if not otherwise stated to be so specifically – Judgment/order. Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana (2003) 5 SCC 604 : [2003] 2 SCR 757; P. V. George v. State of Kerala (2007) 3 SCC 557 : [2007] 1 SCR 1198 – relied on. R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 : [1995] 2 SCR 35; G. P. Doval v. Govt. of U.P. (1984) 4 SCC 329 : [1985] 1 SCR 70; Kuldip Chand v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 680 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 45; Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 : [1999]
2 Suppl. SCR 521 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.