Supreme Court upholds promotions quota decision, orders recasting of seniority list

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Versus State of Punjab and Ors.

Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Versus State of Punjab and Ors. - 2018 AIR 5284, 2018 (13) SCR 91, 2019 (12) SCC 496, 2018 (13) SCALE ... Issues Involved:

1. Whether promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota, and if their appointment should be treated as ad hoc and placed at the bottom of seniority.
2. Whether appointments to the Superior Judicial Service from all three streams should be made based on the roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007.
3. Whether the determination of inter se seniority of members belonging to all three streams should be based on the roster.
4. How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges absorbed into the regular cadre should be determined.
5. Reliefs to be granted.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota, and if their appointment should be treated as ad hoc and placed at the bottom of seniority.

The High Court determined that the cadre strength of Punjab Superior Judicial Service was 107 as of 10.11.2007. The promotion quota under Rule 7(3)(a) was calculated as 53, but the actual working strength was 58, indicating an excess of 5 officers. The court held that the calculation of the quota should be based on the cadre strength rather than vacancies. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, stating that the quota should be determined on the basis of the cadre strength, not vacancies. The Court found that the promotions of 15 officers under Rule 7(3)(a) were within their quota and not ad hoc, thus they should not be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

Issue 2: Whether appointments to the Superior Judicial Service from all three streams should be made based on the roster as per Rule 7(4) read with Appendix B of the Rules, 2007.

The Supreme Court emphasized that Rule 7(4) and Appendix B should be read in light of the Supreme Court's directions in All India Judges' Association case, which mandated the use of a roster system to minimize disputes regarding seniority. The Court held that the roster system, as outlined in Rule 7(4) and Appendix B, should be applied not only for recruitment but also for determining seniority.

Issue 3: Whether the determination of inter se seniority of members belonging to all three streams should be based on the roster.

The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's view that the roster system should be applied for determining seniority. The Court held that the roster system, which was designed to eliminate disputes regarding seniority, should be applied as per the Rules, 2007. The Court concluded that the seniority of officers from different streams, recruited in the same year, should be determined based on the roster, irrespective of their actual joining dates.

Issue 4: How the inter se seniority of Fast Track Judges absorbed into the regular cadre should be determined.

The Supreme Court considered the absorption of Fast Track Court Judges into the regular cadre and held that their seniority should be determined based on the roster system. The Court noted that the Fast Track Court Judges who were absorbed into the regular cadre had undergone a written test and viva-voce, similar to the process for direct recruits. The Court held that these judges should be grouped with direct recruits and their seniority should be determined accordingly.

Reliefs:

The Supreme Court set aside the seniority list dated 24.12.2015 and directed that the seniority list should be re-cast based on the roster system as per Rule 7(4) and Appendix B. The Court finalized the seniority list in its judgment to avoid further delays, placing officers from all three streams according to the roster. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the roster system should be applied in determining seniority but set aside the decision that the promotees were beyond their quota and should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list. The final seniority list, arranged as per the roster, was treated as the final seniority list of officers recruited in 2008. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.