Summary
A judicial officer sought directions that the Madhya Pradesh High Court confine recruitment to the higher judicial service through limited departmental competitive examination to the ten per cent quota fixed in All India Judges' Association (2010), cancel excess appointments since 2007, and amend Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1994 Rules which still provided twenty-five per cent; the High Court dismissed the petition treating it as one for quo warranto. The Supreme Court held the reliefs were not in the nature of quo warranto and decided the matter itself: from 1 January 2011 only ten per cent of seats may be filled by that examination, the 2017 recruitment exceeded it, but excess appointments could not be quashed in the absence of the appointees, and the High Court must adjust any breach in future recruitments.
Issues
- Whether appointments to the higher judicial service by limited departmental competitive examination in excess of the ten per cent quota directed in All India Judges' Association can be cancelled, and what relief follows where the quota has been breached in recruitments after 1 January 2011.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5(1)(b), Madhya Pradesh Uchchatar Nyayik Sewa (Bharti Tatha Sewa Shartein) Niyam, 1994The Rule provided twenty-five per cent for limited competitive examination, but under the Supreme Court's 2010 directions the quota is ten per cent from 01.01.2011 and the directions prevail where the Rules were not suitably amended; the High Court amended its Rules only in 2018. (¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)
Held
- All India Judges' Association directed twenty-five per cent direct recruitment from the Bar, sixty-five per cent by promotion and ten per cent by limited departmental competitive examination from 01.01.2011, with unfilled quota seats going to regular promotion and the order prevailing over unamended Rules; any appointment beyond ten per cent by that examination is an appointment in excess of quota, and the High Court must undertake the exercise from 01.01.2011 and adjust any excess in future recruitment. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 10)
- The reliefs prayed for, directed at cancelling excess appointments and amending the Rules, were not for a writ of quo warranto as the High Court treated them; but no relief quashing the appointments made since 2007 or in 2017-18 can be granted in the absence of the selected candidates, and the Court considered the merits without opining on the locus of the petitioner, a suspended officer later compulsorily retired. (¶¶ 4, 9)
Result
Appeal disposed of without costs; Madhya Pradesh High Court directed to act as per paragraphs 8 and 9 of All India Judges' Association, ensure ten per cent of seats are filled by limited departmental competitive examination from 01.01.2011, and adjust in future recruitments any posts found to breach that quota in recruitments after that date.