Supreme Court Upholds Judicial Officers' Seniority, Requires Referral for Precedent Change

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment regarding the inter se seniority of Judicial Officers, ruling that a coordinate Bench could not deviate from a previous decision without referral to a larger Bench. The Court found the reasons insufficient to justify the departure from precedent, disposing of the appeals without costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of reservation rules for direct recruitment from the Bar and determination of inter se seniority of Judicial Officers.

Interpretation of reservation rules: The case involved a writ petition challenging the non-implementation of reservation for direct recruitment from the Bar under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 1974. Amendments were made to the rule through notifications in 1986 and 1988, with a subsequent retrospective amendment in 1995 introducing a 25% reservation for direct recruits from the Bar. This amendment effectively addressed the grievance raised in the original writ petition, rendering it moot.

Determination of inter se seniority: The High Court, in its judgment, delved into the issue of inter se seniority of the Judicial Officers who were parties to the writ petition. A previous judgment by a Division Bench on the same matter had already attained finality. The impugned judgment by the High Court differed from the earlier decision, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene.

Supreme Court's decision: The Supreme Court held that a coordinate Bench of the High Court could not deviate from the earlier decision without referring the matter to a larger Bench. The Court found the reasons provided by the High Court insufficient to justify the departure from the precedent. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment regarding the inter se seniority of the Judicial Officers involved in the writ petition. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed.

---