Post-based roster rules govern seniority and appointment in higher judicial service; valid promotees cannot be reclassified as ad hoc excess appointees.

Post-based roster rules governing higher judicial service were held to control both appointment sequence and inter se seniority. Promotees appointed under Rule 7(3)(a) were not treated as beyond quota or as ad hoc merely because the cadre strength was later recalculated, since the recruitment exercise had been completed within the revised scheme. The Court also held that Rule 7(4) read with Appendix-B required seniority to be fixed on a roster basis, not solely by date of joining or length of service. The seniority list therefore had to be recast in accordance with the roster, while the promotees' appointments remained valid within quota.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the officers promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of quota and liable to be treated as ad hoc and pushed to the bottom of seniority; (ii) Whether roster under Rule 7(4) read with Appendix-B governs determination of inter se seniority among the three streams.

Issue (i): Whether the officers promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of quota and liable to be treated as ad hoc and pushed to the bottom of seniority.

Analysis: The applicable scheme had to be read in the light of the directions earlier issued for restructuring recruitment to the higher judicial service. Quota was to be understood with reference to cadre posts and the historical position of existing officers could not be mechanically disturbed by a later change in the recruitment pattern. The 2008 recruitment was completed within the revised framework, and the promotees could not be treated as having entered service beyond quota merely because the cadre strength was recalculated after the new rules came into force.

Conclusion: The promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) were not beyond quota, their appointments were not ad hoc, and they could not be placed at the bottom of seniority.

Issue (ii): Whether roster under Rule 7(4) read with Appendix-B governs determination of inter se seniority among the three streams.

Analysis: Rule 7(4) expressly required filling of posts in accordance with the roster in Appendix-B, and the recruitment scheme was intended to minimize seniority disputes by adopting a roster-based arrangement. The rules had to be construed harmoniously with the binding directions on judicial service recruitment, and a construction limiting the roster only to initial appointment would defeat that object. Seniority therefore had to follow the roster points, not the date of joining or continuous length of service alone.

Conclusion: Roster under Rule 7(4) read with Appendix-B applies to seniority as well as appointment, and inter se seniority must be fixed accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The seniority list was required to be recast on a roster basis, while the promotees' appointments under Rule 7(3)(a) were held to be within quota and not ad hoc.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recruitment rules prescribe a post-based roster to implement a quota system in higher judicial service, the roster governs inter se seniority as well as appointment sequence, and later administrative recalculation cannot retrospectively convert valid promotee appointments into ad hoc excess appointments.

---