HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

p. 134 Copy page pinpoint

A no.6 with which no infirmity can be found. We thus conclude that all Fast Track Court judges who were taken into the regular cadre in different streams have been rightly placed in the seniority list amongst their stream to which no exception can be taken. OUR CONCLUSIONS:

68Copy pinpoint68. The tentative seniority list was prepared on the basis of continuous length of service, hence, all promotee officers who had joined on 27th/28th February, 2008 have been shown at serial no.1 to 14. Parminder Pal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, Fast Track Court Judges from Bar who were appointed in regular cadre w.e.f. 01.08.2008 have been shown at serial no.15 and 16. From Serial No.17 to 24 were out of turn promotees in block and thereafter Serial No.25 to 35, direct recruits were placed in block. The final tentative seniority list has been approved by the committee after considering the objections. It is reflected in its report dated 11.08.2015. Full Court approved the report dated 11.08.2015, hence, final seniority list was issued on 24.12.2015. Final seniority list was same as tentative seniority list. The Division Bench of the High Court deciding the writ petitions challenging the seniority list has held: i) roster shall be applicable in determination of seniority. ii) fifteen promotees promoted under Rule 7(3)(a) were in excess of their quota. iii) Promotion of fifteen promotees under Rule 7(3) has to be treated as ad-hoc promotion and they shall be placed at the bottom of seniority.

69Copy pinpoint69. The Writ Petitions were allowed by Division Bench. In F accordance with the judgment of the Division Bench only change in the seniority list was to displace the promotees from serial no.1 to 14 and to place it in the seniority list below direct recruits. The division bench judgment of the High Court is under challenge before us.

70Copy pinpoint70. In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the following G conclusions: - 1) Promotion of fifteen officers under Rule 7(3)(a) cannot be held to be beyond their quota. 2) The promotion of fifteen officers cannot be said to be ad-hoc

HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 135 CHANDIGARH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

nor they can be directed to be put at the bottom of the seniority list. 3) The High Court even though accepted the principle that roster is applicable in the seniority but in the operative portion of the judgment in paragraph 208 did not issue any direction to re-cast the seniority as per the roster given in the Appendix-B which is an apparent error committed by the High Court. 4) Rule 2007 having been brought in place to give effect to the judgment of this Court in All India Judges association case, (2002) 4 SCC 247, while interpreting the Rules 2007 the direction issued by this court have to be kept in mind and rules cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to violate the directions issued by this Court in the above judgment. 5) Rule 7(4) read with Appendix-B has to be read in the light of direction of this Court in All India’s case and harmonious construction of the rule clearly indicates that roster which has been expressly made applicable for filling the post of all the three streams shall be applicable while determining the seniority. Reliefs: -

71Copy pinpoint71. In view of foregoing discussion, the seniority list dated 24.12.2015 is to be set aside. After setting aside the seniority list, two courses are open. Firstly, to remit this matter to the High Court again to re-cast the seniority list as per our direction and secondly, to finalize seniority list in this judgment itself. We choose to adopt the second course for two reasons: a) Already period of three years has elapsed when the tentative seniority list was published. Finalisation of seniority as early as possible is essential and necessary for administration of justice. b) There is no dispute regarding inter-se-seniority of the promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) and issue pertaining to inter-se-seniority of out of turn promotees and direct recruits have already been finalized by us. Only exercise which is to be undertaken is to place officers of three streams in accordance with the roster as indicated in Appendix-B. After placing the officers of three streams, the seniority position as per roster comes as follows: H

p. 136 Copy page pinpoint

A S.NO. NAME RULE

1. Shri Keshav Chander Gupta, Addl.D&SJ 7(3)(a) (Since retired prematurely)

2. Shri Narinder Kumar Gaur, 7(3)(a) B Addl.D&SJ (since retired prematurely w.e.f 07.06.2011)

3. Shri Parminder Pal Singh, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

4. Shri Virinder Aggarwal, 7(3)(b) C Addl.D&SJ

5. Shri Kishore Kumar, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ

6. Shri Paramj it Singh, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ D

7. Shri Sukhdev Singh, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

8. Ms. Mandeep Pannu, 7(3)(b) Addl.D&SJ

E 9. Shri Pritam Singh Dhanona, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ, (Ex.S.M.)

10. Shri Harpal Singh, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ

11. Shri Munish Singhal, 7(3)(c) F Addl.D&SJ

12. Shri Ashok Paul Batra, 7(3)(b) Addl.D&SJ

13. Shri Amrinder Singh Grewal, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ G

14. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Randhawa, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ

15. Ms. Rupinderjit Chahal, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

HON’BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 137 CHANDIGARH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

16. Shri Rajinder Agarwal, 7(3)(b) Addl.D&SJ

17. Ms. Ramesh Kumari, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ B

18. Shri Jagjit Singh Chohan, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ (since expired)

19. Shri Kamaljit lamba, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

20. Shri Tarsem Mangla, 7(3)(b) C Addl.D&SJ

21. Shri Nirmal Singh, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ (Since retired prematurely) D

22. Ms. Sunita Kumari, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ

23. Shri Nirbhow Singh Gill, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

24. Shri Arunvir Vashista, 7(3)(b) E Addl.D&SJ

25. Ms. Asha Condal, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ

26. Shri Kuldeep Kumar Kareer, 7(3)(a) Addl.D&SJ F

27. Shri Jatinder Pal Singh Khumi, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

28. Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, 7(3)(b) Addl.D&SJ G

29. Dr. Hemant Gopal, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

30. Shri Surinder Singh Sahni, 7(3)(b) Addl.D&SJ

p. 138 Copy page pinpoint

31. Shri Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

32. Shri Sumeet Malhotra, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

B 33. Shri Arun Gupta, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

34. Ms. Jatinder Kaur-II, 7(3)(c) Addl.D&SJ

35. Shri Mohd. Gulzar, 7(3)(c) C Addl.D&SJ

72Copy pinpoint72. It is further relevant to note that in view of judgment of this Court in (2010) 15 SCC 170, All India Judges Association, quota of 25 percent for out of turn promotees has been reduced as 10 percent w.e.f. 01.01.2011. The present seniority dispute being related to D recruitment held in 2008, the reduction in quota may not be relevant in the present case.

73Copy pinpoint73. In view of foregoing conclusions all appeals are allowed in following manner: -

E 1) The Division Bench judgment of the High Court so far as it holds that roster is applicable in the determination of seniority of members of superior judicial service is upheld. 2) The judgment of the Division bench of the High Court holding that fifteen promotees under Rule 7(3)(a) were beyond the quota F and shall take position at the bottom of the seniority list is set aside. 3) The seniority list dated 24.12.2014 is set aside. The list of 35 officers arranged as per Roster as indicated above shall be treated as final Seniority list of the officers recruited in the year 2008.

74Copy pinpoint74. The parties shall bear their own cost.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals allowed.