Summary
Rajasthan District Judge seniority required correction only for officers selected through the limited competitive examination: their inter se placement must follow examination merit rather than feeder-cadre seniority. Earlier ad hoc Fast Track Court service did not count as substantive cadre service. The 47 officers substantively promoted in April 2010 retained en-bloc seniority over officers selected through the separate 2011 process and appointed in 2013. The other challenges to the seniority report failed.
Issues
- Whether ad hoc Fast Track Court service counted for District Judge cadre seniority.
- Whether the 2011 recruitment continued the cancelled 2010 process.
- Whether the 47 officers promoted in 2010 should be interleaved with 2013 appointees through the cyclic roster.
- Whether examination merit or feeder-cadre seniority governed placement among limited-examination selectees.
Provisions considered
- Rules 15, 31(2), 31(4), 42, 47 and 57; Schedule VII, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010Applied substantive appointment and the cyclic roster to the relevant selection processes, while giving the special merit-based limited-examination provision priority over the general seniority rule. (¶¶ 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.11, 39, 40, 41, 41.4, 42, 43, 44)
- Rules 22 and 24, Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969Earlier ad hoc promotions to Fast Track Courts did not confer a right to retrospective substantive seniority preserved by the later rules. (¶¶ 3.2, 3.3, 39, 43)
Held
- Ad hoc service as a Fast Track Court Judge did not count towards seniority in the regular District Judge cadre. Seniority was reckoned from substantive appointment; neither the earlier rules nor continuation after abolition of Fast Track Courts created the claimed retrospective entitlement. (¶¶ 39, 43)
- The 2011 recruitment was a fresh process after cancellation of the 2010 exercise, with fresh vacancy determination and participants who had not necessarily participated or been eligible earlier. It could not be treated as continuation of the cancelled selection. (¶ 40)
- The 47 officers were substantively promoted on 21 April 2010 through a distinct process, more than three years before the 2013 appointments. They rightly retained en-bloc seniority. The cyclic order normally requires adherence but the words “as far as possible” permit flexibility in the particular circumstances; it did not require interleaving these separate selections. (¶¶ 41, 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, 41.4)
- Limited competitive examination is intended to reward merit and accelerate promotion. Ranking successful candidates by feeder-cadre seniority would reduce it to a qualifying test. The special requirement of Rule 31(2) prevails over Rule 47(4), so inter se placement among these selectees must follow examination merit. (¶ 42)
- Officers substantively appointed in the common 2013 process had to be placed through the cyclic order with the other streams, without en-bloc preference based on prior ad hoc service. Officers substantively promoted in February 2016 likewise could not claim an anterior substantive date. The report required no other modification. (¶¶ 43, 44)
Result
Two petitions seeking merit-based inter se placement of limited-examination selectees allowed to that extent; seniority list ordered modified within four weeks. Report dated 15 March 2019 otherwise upheld and all other writ petitions dismissed.