2000 (8) TMI 1143 - SC - Indian Laws

Determination of inter-se seniority of a group of officers - Promotees and direct recruitments - Delhi Higher Judicial Service - Principle of quota and rota - temporary post or a permanent post - interpretation of specific recruitment rules particularly Rules 7 8 16 and 17 - Terms ad hoc stop gap and fortuitous - HELD THAT - If the appointment order itself indicates that the post is created to meet a particular temporary contingency and for a period specified in the order then the appointment to such a post can be aptly described as ad hoc or stop-gap. If a post is created to meet a situation which has suddenly arisen on account of happening of some event of a temporary nature then the appointment of such a post can aptly be described as fortuitous in nature. If an appointment is made to meet the contingency arising on account of delay in completing the process of regular recruitment to the post due to any reason and it is not possible to leave the post vacant till then and to meet this contingency an appointment is made then it can appropriately be called as a stop-gap arrangement and appointment in the post as ad hoc appointment. It is not possible to lay down any straight-jacket formula nor give an exhaustive list of circumstances and situation in which such an appointment (ad hoc fortuitous or stop-gap) can be made. As such this discussion is not intended to enumerate the circumstances or situations in which appointments of officers can be said to come within the scope of any of these terms. It is only to indicate how the matter should be approached while dealing with the question of inter se seniority of officers in the cadre. In the Service Jurisprudence a person who possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed to a particular post and then he is appointed with the approval and consultation of the appropriate authority and continues in the post for a fairly long period then such appointment cannot be held to be stop-gap or fortuitous or purely ad hoc . Thus the reasoning and basis on which the appointment of the promotees in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the case in hand was held by the High Court to be fortuitous/ad hoc/stop-gap are wholly erroneous and therefore exclusion of those appointees to have their continuous length of service for seniority is erroneous. Therefore we quash the seniority list both provisional and final so far as it relates to the appointees either by direct recruitment or by promotion in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules in the year 1987 and their inter-se seniority must be re- determined on the basis of continuous length of service in the Cadre as indicated in Singlas case and explained by us in this judgment. Since the future of these officers to a great extent depends upon seniority and many of these officers may be on the verge of superannuation the High Court would do well in finalising the seniority within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Summary

The legal judgment addresses the issue of determining the inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits within the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. This matter arises from the interpretation and application of recruitment rules and previous court directives, particularly those established in the case of O.P. Singla & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal question considered is whether the guidelines and directions given by the Supreme Court in the O.P. Singla case regarding the determination of seniority between promotees and direct recruits have been duly followed. The case also examines the interpretation of specific recruitment rules, particularly Rules 7, 8, 16, and 17, and their application to appointments made prior to the 1987 amendment of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The primary legal framework involves the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, particularly Rules 7, 8, 16, and 17. The precedent set in O.P. Singla's case is crucial, as it provides guidelines for determining seniority based on continuous length of service, provided the appointments were made in consultation with the High Court and the appointees met the qualifications under Rule 7.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court reaffirmed the interpretation in Singla's case that appointments made under Rules 16 and 17, after due consultation with the High Court and where the appointee met the qualifications under Rule 7, should not be considered ad hoc, fortuitous, or stop-gap. The Court emphasized that continuous officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy should be recognized for seniority purposes.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court examined the seniority lists prepared by the Delhi High Court and found that they did not adhere to the directives in Singla's case. The lists improperly categorized certain promotees' appointments as ad hoc or fortuitous, despite these appointments being made under Rules 16 and 17 with the necessary qualifications and consultation.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from Singla's case to determine that the seniority of promotees who were appointed under Rules 16 and 17 should be based on the continuous length of service. The Court found that the High Court's reliance on the number of posts available and the application of Rule 8(2) was incorrect, as the quota and rota rule had broken down.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court addressed arguments from both promotees and direct recruits. It rejected the contention that appointments beyond the number of available posts should be considered ad hoc or fortuitous. The Court also dismissed the argument that the Singla judgment required reconsideration, affirming its applicability to the pre-1987 appointments.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the seniority lists prepared by the Delhi High Court were flawed and did not comply with the directives from Singla's case. It ordered the quashing of the seniority lists and directed the High Court to prepare new lists based on continuous length of service.

Significant Holdings

The Court preserved the principle that continuous officiation in a non-fortuitous vacancy should be recognized for seniority purposes, as established in Singla's case. It held that the appointments made under Rules 16 and 17, after due consultation with the High Court and where the appointee met the qualifications under Rule 7, should not be considered ad hoc, fortuitous, or stop-gap.

The final determination was that the seniority lists prepared by the Delhi High Court were quashed, and the inter-se seniority must be re-determined based on continuous length of service, in line with the principles from Singla's case. The Court allowed Writ Petition No. 490/87 and dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 1252/90 and 14114/84, directing the High Court to finalize the seniority within six weeks.