2016 (4) TMI 1425

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, A.O.R. For the Respondent : For UOI Mr. Tufail A. Khan, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. Harish Kr. Khinehi, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, A.O.R. Mr. B Krishna Prasad, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, A.O.R. FOR THE STATES OF ANDHRA PRADESH Mr. G.N. Reddy, A.O.R. ASSAM Mr. Manish Goswami, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, A.O.R. For M/s. MAP & Co., Advs. ARUNACHAL PRADESH Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. BIHAR Mr. Gopal Singh, A.O.R. Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv. Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv. DELHI Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gunwant Dara, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.(NP) GUJARAT & Rrs Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Adv. Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, A.O.R. GOA Mr. T. Mahipal, A.O.R. HARYANA Dr. Monika Gusain, A.O.R. For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, A.O.R. HIMACHAL PRADESH Mr. Suryanarayan Singh, A.A.G. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. JAMMU & KASHMIR Mr. Sunil Fernandes, A.O.R. Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Puneeth K.G., Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, A.O.R. KARNATAKA Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, A.O.R. KERALA Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., A.O.R. MADHYA PRADESH Mr. C.D. Singh, A.O.R. Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. MAHARASHTRA Mr. Aniruddha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sudipto Sircar, Adv. JAMMU & KASHMIR Mr. Bharat Sangal, A.O.R. JHARKHAND Mr. Krishnanand Pandey, A.O.R. HIMACHAL PRADESH Mr. Ashok Mathur, A.O.R. MADHYA PRADESH Mr. C.D. Singh, A.O.R. Mr. Sandeepan Pathak, Adv. ORISSA Mr. Sibo Shankar Mishra, A.O.R. Mr. U.K. Mishra, Adv. PATNA Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co., Advs. Mr. J.M. Khanna, A.O.R. Ms. Shefali Sethi, Adv. Mr. S. Ramesh, Adv. KERALA Mr. T.G.N. Nair, A.O.R. GUWAHATI Mr. Nitin Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. P.I. Jose, A.O.R. For other appearing parties Mr. Sanjay Parikh, A.O.R. Ms. Mamta Saxena, Adv. Mr. P.R. Bhal, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kuma Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satyavan Rathi, Adv. Mr. M.A. Chinnaswamy, A.O.R. Mr. Amit Kumar, A.O.R. Mr. Shaurya Sahye, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mohera Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arup Banerjee, A.O.R. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, A.O.R. Ms. Asha Jain Madan, A.O.R. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, A.O.R. Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, A.O.R. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, A.O.R. O R D E R IA No. 335, 336 and 339 Impleadment is allowed. Issue notice. The respective ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3 of the Rules of 2004 the following categorization in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been formulated. However, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 2004 states that the Rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette and the Gazette Publication was on 20th March, 2004. In the light of the said prescription made in the Rules after the categorization was made under Rule 3(3), the grievance of the applicant has now surfaced. The grievance of the applicant, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel, based on their prescription contained in Section 3 of the Act of 2003 read along with Section 4, even if the categorization came to be made under the Rules of 2004, the same should have been given effect rto retrospectively, in consonance with the specific provisions contained in the above referred Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 2003. We are fully convinced of the said submission so made by the leaned senior counsel on behalf of the applicant(s). In such circumstances, the prescription under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules of 2004 and the Gazette Publication dated 20.3.2004 cannot su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the cadre of District Judges with effect from 31.3.2003. The said prayer is again based on the statement of law as propounded in paragraph 49 of the above referred to decision rendered in All India Judges' Association and Others (Supra). While stating as to in what manner the 40 point roster is to be determined, this Court directed that appropriate Rules and methods should be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States wherever necessary by 31.3.2003. When this application was moved, initially on behalf of the High Court, learned Standing Counsel took notice and submitted that in the High Court a Committee has been constituted which is deliberating on this issue and, therefore, he will be able to report to this Court in a week's time. It is now pointed out by Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel for the applicant(s) that the 34 point roster has been drawn by the High Court based on the cadre strength providing for different points applicable to the promotees by way of limited competitive examination as well as for direct recruits in the entry level District/Additional District and Sessions Judge. It is also brought to our notice that appropriate Rules have also bee....