1974 (10) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Writ petition dismissed, rules upheld, seniority legality affirmed, preliminary objection rejected

JOGINDER NATH AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the rules challenged and affirming the legality of the seniority fixation. The court ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rule 9(a) of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules.2. Validity of Rule 11 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules.3. Validity of Rule 8 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules.4. Fixation of seniority of petitioners and respondents in the Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi Higher Judicial Service.5. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Rule 9(a) of the Delhi Judicial Service RulesThe petitioners contended that Rule 9(a) was bad as it was not framed in accordance with Article 234 of the Constitution and permitted the initial appointment of persons who were not in any Judicial service from before. The court held that the rules framed by the Lt. Governor for appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service, either at the initial stage or thereafter, were valid as they were framed under Article 309 in consultation with the Delhi High Court. The argument that even the initial recruitment of the petitioners to the Delhi Judicial Service was in jeopardy under Article 234 was ultimately not pressed.Issue 2: Validity of Rule 11 of the Delhi Judicial Service RulesThe petitioners argued that Rule 11 was bad as it infringed Article 14 of the Constitution by equating the length of Judicial service with the length of non-judicial service for the purpose of fixation of seniority. The court found that arranging the seniority of candidates recommended by the Selection Committee in accordance with the length of service rendered by them in the judicial cadre was justified, legal, and valid. It was not equating unequals with equals but placing two classes at par for seniority in the integrated judicial service of Delhi. The court concluded that Rule 11 did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.Issue 3: Validity of Rule 8 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service RulesThe petitioners challenged Rule 8, which fixed seniority in the higher service according to seniority in the lower service. The court interpreted Rule 8 to mean that the inter-se seniority of members of the Delhi Judicial Service promoted to the higher service would be the same as in the lower service, provided the promotion was at the same time. The court held that Rule 8 was not discriminatory and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution when interpreted reasonably.Issue 4: Fixation of SeniorityThe petitioners contended that the fixation of their seniority vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 6 in the Delhi Judicial Service was not in accordance with Rule 11. The court found that the initial recruits were given seniority according to the length of service in their cadres, and the fixation of seniority in accordance with Rule 11 was legal and valid. Regarding the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the court held that members coming to the higher service on temporary appointments could not claim the benefit of inter-se seniority under Rule 8. The seniority of promotees under Rule 8(1) would be determined at the time of their confirmation.Issue 5: Preliminary Objection on DelayThe respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay. The court held that the preliminary objection could not succeed as the revised seniority list was issued on 2.6.1973, and the filing of the writ petition was not designedly delayed thereafter. The court noted that the rule against inquiring into belated and stale claims was a rule of practice based on discretion and not an inviolable rule. Each case must depend on its own facts, and in this case, there was no delay to disentitle the petitioners from claiming relief.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had not made out a case entitling them to any relief. The rules in question were found to be valid, and the fixation of seniority was upheld as legal and justified. The preliminary objection on the ground of delay was also rejected.