TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether service rendered in Fast Track Courts by a judicial officer promoted under the applicable service rules had to be counted for seniority in the parent cadre after regularisation and for consequential selection grade; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches or non-joinder of necessary parties.
Issue (i): Whether service rendered in Fast Track Courts by a judicial officer promoted under the applicable service rules had to be counted for seniority in the parent cadre after regularisation and for consequential selection grade.
Analysis: The governing principle was that where a promotee continuously officiates from a date prior to the appointment of direct recruits and is later substantively appointed without reversion, the officiating period is counted for seniority. The service rendered in Fast Track Courts was directed by the Supreme Court to be treated as service in the parent cadre, and the statutory scheme could not override the seniority rule in the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. The Full Court resolution and the subsequent regularisation showed that the petitioner had been promoted through the prescribed process and had continued uninterruptedly, so the period spent in Fast Track Courts could not be ignored. On that basis, the petitioner became entitled to seniority over the later direct recruits and to be considered for selection grade from the earlier due date.
Conclusion: The Fast Track Court service was required to be counted for seniority, and the petitioner was entitled to be placed above the direct recruits with consequential selection grade benefits.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay and laches or non-joinder of necessary parties.
Analysis: The challenge was raised after the representation was rejected, and the petition was filed on the same day as the rejection order. The claim was directed only against the impugned seniority treatment as between the petitioner and the two contesting officers, while the other officers in the gradation list were not necessary parties because their seniority was not adversely affected. The objections of delay, waiver and non-joinder therefore had no merit on the record.
Conclusion: The objections of delay and laches and non-joinder were rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned committee report, rejection of the petitioner's representation and the related notification were quashed, and the petitioner's seniority and selection grade were directed to be refixed by treating the Fast Track Court service as part of the parent cadre service.
Ratio Decidendi: Continuous officiation by a promotee prior to the entry of direct recruits, followed by substantive appointment without reversion, entitles the promotee to count that service for seniority, and a special scheme cannot dilute the statutory seniority rule or the binding effect of the Supreme Court's direction treating Fast Track Court service as parent-cadre service.
TaxTMI 
