Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the administrative placement of the disputed Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service promotees above direct recruits without applying rotation in the peculiar delayed-recruitment circumstances. Although quota-rota was mandatory, applying it here would seriously prejudice promotees where vacancy determination and suitability testing had been delayed. The promotees’ separate demand for seniority before selection also failed: the retrospective suitability-test requirement was valid and appointments governed their seniority. The direct recruits’ writ was dismissed and the promotees’ challenge remained rejected.
Issues
- Whether promotees could claim seniority before selection without satisfying the retrospective suitability-test requirement.
- Whether quota-rota required disturbing the administrative seniority arrangement despite the exceptional recruitment history.
Provisions considered
- Rules 22 and 26, in the versions considered, Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975The appointment and seniority rules required quota-rota, but their application had to accommodate the peculiar delays in vacancy determination and suitability testing. The Court preserved the administrative placement without granting promotees seniority before appointment. (¶¶ 14, 15, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31)
Held
- The suitability test was required by All India Judges’ Association and the retrospective amended rules already upheld in V.K. Srivastava. Promotees could neither be promoted nor claim seniority without satisfying it; their seniority had correctly been given from appointment. (¶¶ 13, 15, 24, 25, 29)
- Quota-rota was a mandatory rule, but prolonged vacancy litigation and the inability to hold the first suitability test until 2008 created an exceptional situation. Strict rotation would seriously prejudice the promotees. A pragmatic interpretation was justified, and the High Court’s judicial interference with their placement above direct recruits could not stand. (¶¶ 15, 20, 21, 22, 30)
- The appeal supporting the administrative seniority determination was allowed and the direct recruits’ writ dismissed. The judgment rejecting the promotees’ separate writ was upheld and their appeal dismissed; the other matters followed this disposition. (¶ 31)
Result
Appeal arising from SLP (C) 26993/2017 allowed and direct recruits’ Writ Petition 1880/2017 dismissed. Dismissal of promotees’ Writ Petition 16569/2016 upheld and their appeal dismissed; other matters disposed of accordingly.