Seniority in judicial service cannot be fixed mechanically by quota-rota where promotees hold substantive, continuous officiating vacancies.

Under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, seniority could not be fixed by a mechanical quota-rota formula where temporary appointments from one source were made under Rules 16 and 17. Promotee Additional District and Sessions Judges appointed in substantive, non-ad hoc, non-fortuitous vacancies were treated as part of the service for seniority purposes, and continuous officiation controlled seniority instead of strict rotation with direct recruits. The quota-rota system was therefore inapplicable to such appointments, and a gradation list excluding those promotees was constitutionally invalid. The existing rules were upheld, but the impugned seniority list was quashed and a fresh list was directed, without altering inter se seniority among promotees or affecting the special position of the scheduled caste appointee.

---

---

Issues: The issue was whether the seniority of promotee and direct recruit Additional District and Sessions Judges under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 was to be governed by the quota and rota principle in Rule 8(2), and whether promotees appointed to temporary posts or temporary substantive vacancies under Rules 16 and 17 could be excluded from the seniority list.

Analysis: The rules were read as an integrated scheme. Rule 7 was construed by the majority as prescribing a one-third quota for direct recruits, but that quota could not operate in isolation from Rules 16 and 17, which authorised temporary appointments only from members of the Delhi Judicial Service in consultation with the High Court. Promotees appointed under those provisions were held to be appointed in posts falling within the service and, when appointed in a substantive capacity and not on an ad hoc or fortuitous basis, they formed the same class as direct recruits for seniority purposes. Since the quota and rota system broke down whenever appointments were made under Rules 16 and 17, seniority had to be determined on the basis of continuous officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy, and not by a mechanical application of the rota rule to such appointments.

Conclusion: The seniority list based on quota and rota throughout was held to be constitutionally invalid insofar as it excluded such promotees, and the list was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The rules themselves were upheld, but the impugned gradation list was struck down and a fresh seniority list was directed to be prepared on the principles stated, with no disturbance to the inter se seniority of promotees among themselves and no prejudice to the special position of the scheduled caste appointee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment from more than one source is governed by rules that also permit temporary appointments from only one source, seniority must be based on continuous, non-fortuitous officiation in the service and the quota-rota principle cannot be mechanically applied to such appointments.

Dissenting Opinion: Mukharji, J. agreed that the petitions should succeed but held that Rule 7 did not create a quota and that Rule 8(2) could operate only for initial or simultaneous appointments; he treated the temporary promotees as members of the service in substantive capacity and reached the result by a different construction of the rules.

---