Summary
Munsiffs of the 2003 batch in Jammu & Kashmir, selected through the Public Service Commission's 2002 examination, were placed in the gradation list according to roster points under the Reservation Rules, so reserved-category officers displaced general-category officers who had ranked higher in merit. In a second round after remand by the Supreme Court, the High Court quashed the gradation list of 01.06.2010 and directed that seniority be re-framed strictly according to merit, with those delayed in promotion to be treated as eligible for the limited competitive examination for the higher judicial service. The reserved-category officers sought leave to appeal, relying on the High Court's Full Court resolution of 1994 adopting the roster for seniority and the prospective operation of the 2005 Reservation Rules.
Issues
- Whether the inter se seniority of Munsiffs directly recruited on the Public Service Commission's recommendations is to be fixed on the basis of roster points under the reservation rules or in the order of merit at selection.
- Whether a long-standing administrative practice of the High Court, or the alleged non-retrospectivity of the 2005 Reservation Rules, warrants an exception for the 2003 batch.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 16 and 16(4); Article 235 (Article 111 of the J&K Constitution), Constitution of IndiaIn direct recruitment an inter se merit list is inevitable and the recruiting authority cannot place candidates by a method inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16; Article 16(4) affirmative action concerns appointment, not fixation of seniority, so seniority fixed by roster points impermissibly extends reservation. The High Court's administrative power did not justify departing from this. (¶¶ 16, 19, 25, 29)
- Rule 14 of the 1994 Rules; Rule 5 and proviso to Rule 37 of the 2005 Rules, Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Rules, 1994 and 2005The roster under these Rules operates only to ensure that the prescribed percentage of reservation is reflected in recruitment; once P.S. Ghalaut was declared not good law in Bimlesh Tanwar (10.03.2003), no authority could use roster points as the basis for seniority or promotion, and the petitioners' argument on non-retrospectivity of the 2005 Rules did not assist them. (¶¶ 5, 11, 29, 30, 31)
Held
- The roster system exists only to ensure that the quantum of reservation is reflected in the recruitment process; it has nothing to do with inter se seniority among those recruited. Roster points do not determine the seniority of appointees who gain simultaneous appointment, that is, those appointed or deemed appointed on the same date irrespective of when they joined. (¶ 29)
- Bimlesh Tanwar's declaration that P.S. Ghalaut did not lay down good law operates retrospectively since prospective overruling was not expressly applied (P.V. George); anything done as a consequence of P.S. Ghalaut cannot stand, and no exception is carved out for the 2003 batch merely because the High Court had followed the roster since 1995. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 30)
- The appointments were made under Rule 42 of the J&K Civil Services (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 by Government order of 06.08.2003, well after Bimlesh Tanwar, which makes all the difference; the High Court rightly directed re-framing of seniority strictly by merit. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed; the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's judgment of 27.05.2022 in SWP No. 1350 of 2011, quashing the gradation list of 01.06.2010 and directing seniority of the 2003 batch of Munsiffs to be re-framed strictly according to merit, affirmed.