Judicial Service – Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 – Proviso to r.7 – Consideration for regularisation – Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis – They were to man Fast Track Courts (FTC) – Respondents claimed for regularisation to the said posts and to work as Additional Sessions Judges, invoking the provisions of r.7 of the Rules – However, the Committee consisting of High Court Judges rejected the claim of the respondents – Thereafter, High Court issued advertisement on 31.07.2008 for the post of District and Sessions Judge, in which respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared but could not qualify and respondent no.1 did not appear – High Court took decision on 31.07.2012 to undertake selection process of the FTC Judges in terms of the Brij Mohan Lal (2) case – None of the respondents were able to qualify the exam, consequently their services were dispensed with – Writ Petition filed by the respondents – High Court set aside the order dispensing the ad hoc services of the respondents and directed the State to start the consultation process for absorption of respondents – On appeal, held: The Committee of High Court Judges was of the opinion that the respondents were not entitled for appointment to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Service – The said order was not challenged by the writ petitioners/respondents – Even otherwise, such decision of the Committee stood vindicated as two respondents who had appeared in examination vide advertisement dated 31.07.2008 failed to qualify in the selection process and other respondent did not appear, and further all the respondents failed to qualify another test which was conducted pursuant to Brij Mohan Lal (2) case – This fact pointed out incompetence of the respondents – Proviso to r.7 of 2006 Rules provided only to ‘consider’ the cases of the respondents for absorption – Cases of the respondents were considered, but they were not found fit for absorption in the regular cadre – The proviso never gave any mandate that the respondents had to be necessarily absorbed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is stated that service records of the writ petitioners were examined by the Committee consisting of three High Court Judges and on the said examination the Committee was of the opinion that the writ petitioners were not entitled for appointment to the regular cadre of Higher Judicial Service. No challenge was laid by the writ petitioners to the manner in which their cases were considered and rejected by the High Court or that such a consideration suffered from any kind of blemish. Even otherwise, such a decision of the Committee stands vindicated inasmuch as:
(i) the two writ petitioners who appeared in the examination pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Grade-I District and Sessions Judge failed to qualify in the selection process and the third writ petitioner did not appear at all; and
(ii) the petitioners even failed to qualify the test which was conducted pursuant to Brij Mohan Lal (2) in which the writ petitioners had appeared. This fact is noted just to point out the incompetence of the writ petitioners. [Para 30] [287-G-H; 288A-C]
1.2 The ratio of Brij Mohan Lal (2) is discussed by this Court in detail in the case of Mahesh Chandra Verma and there also the Court was of the opinion that appointment on regular cadre should be made only on the basis of written examination etc. as laid down in Brij Mohan Lal (2). [Para 31] [288-D-E]
2.1 Even in terms of proviso to Rule 7 of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006, the cases of the writ petitioners were considered, but they were not found fit for absorption in the regular cadre. [Para 31] [288-E-F]
2.2 Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules, which lays down the procedure and method of recruitment to the post of Additional Sessions Judges. The case of the writ petitioners is not covered by the main provision. When two posts of Grade-I District and Sessions Judges, after their creation vide Notification dated December 17, 2007 were advertised, two of the writ petitioners appeared but failed to qualify in the said selection process while the third writ petitioner did not appear at all. Adverting to the proviso of Rule 7, no doubt, it was tailor-made for the writ petitioners. However, this proviso only suggests that cases of three ad hoc Additional Sessions Judges, who were none else but the three writ petitioners, ‘may be considered’ for absorption in Grade-I of the service. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the word ‘may’ would mean that it was entirely within the discretion of the High Court to even consider or not to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for absorption or whether this word has to be read as ‘shall’ thereby holding that it was mandatory on the part of the High Court to at least consider the cases of the writ petitioners for absorption. This is because of the reason that as matter of fact the cases of the writ petitioners were considered by the High Court and, in fact, that appears to be the intention behind the proviso. However, the provision provided only to ‘consider’ the cases of the writ petitioner for absorption. The proviso never gave any mandate that the writ petitioners had to be necessarily absorbed. Thus, only right of consideration was there. There was no automatic absorption. Had that been the intention, the proviso would have been worded differently. [Para 26] [284-E-H; 285-A-B]
Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India and Others (2002)
5 SCC 1 : [2002] 3 SCR 810; Madhumita Das and Others v. State of Orissa and Others (2008) 6 SCC 731 : [2008] 9 SCR 1126; Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India and Others (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012]
5 SCR 305; Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior and Others (1987) 1 SCC 5 : [1987] 1 SCR 200; Mahesh Chandra Verma and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2012) 11 SCC 656 : [2012] 9 SCR 6; Rajendra Singh Verma (Dead) through Lrs. and Others v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2011) 10 SCC 1 : [2011] 12 SCR 496; Ajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2011) 11 SCC 458 : [2011] 3 SCR 830; Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court and Others (1969) 3 SCC 56 : [1970] 2 SCR 666; High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1975) 1 SCC 843 : [1975] 3 SCR
365 – 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.