- OF () District Judges, (ii) the Principal Judge and Judyes of
« famed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Con
Be eae ‘a, Fe
[ae
DAYARaM ASANAND GURSAHANI | v.
| STATE ‘OF MAHARASATRA AND ‘OTHERS _ .
Febritar y 22, 1 984
0. Ccnsarrn Reppy, E.S. Veni ATARAMtA AND RB. Misra, Wy
Bnbay Judicial Service Recruisment Rules 1956, Sab “clisse () 3 clause wo of Suh rule (2) af Rule 5, scope of —Seniorliy-—For the purposes of -senivrity in the _ tadeaf Divtrict Judges, whether the period during whi hone had worked usan Assixtent Judge could be reckoned—Right to be pos ved as an inspecting Judge ane Entitle- ment to the salary and allowances in the selection grade Selection Grade, whether separate haa : ‘ 3 : . . Fe aA ,
The judicial service of the State of M: —_ consists of two branches— - namely a the Junior Branch und (i) the Scutor Branch, The Junior Branch con- #ste of the foltowing Class I Officers—(i) Judges of the Sinall Causes Courts at places other than Bombay, (ii) Civil, Judges {Senior Division), (iv) Judges of the Small ~ Causes Courts at Bombay and Metropolitan May! strates and (iv) Civil Judges (Juni- * Of Division) and Judicial Magistrates of the First Class. The Senior Branch consists Bombay City Civil Court, ©
(i) the Chie Jods and the Addl, Chief) udge of the Senall Causes Court, Bombay
(i) the Chief Previdtncy Magistrate and the Additional Chief Presidency basins cians and (v) the Assistant Judges. There is no separate care of selection “ je
District Judges or of Inypecting District Judges referred to in the Rules which are stitution, Tho scale of pay of
District Judges Prive to July 1, 1962 was Rs. 50-50-1004 160050180, ay .
a the er of the High Court, the State Government passed two teolutions one on 21-10-1963 und another on July 20, 1974 sanctioning One post Wnder the former with effect from 1-7-62 and five posts under the Jatter with effect from 1st August 1974 of District Judges in the Selection Grade of Rs 1800-100-
2000, which is specifically stated to bea par Sable to the cadre of District Judges. Consequent upon the revision of Pay scales e .
tof the pay scale ‘of Rs, 900-1800 appli- .
a2,
»
He
’ ~~:
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ; [1984] 2 S.C.R..
¢ ~ ‘
‘of officers of the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service the State Government modified the pay scale of the selection grade District Judges with effect from January,
1, 1973 1 by ‘the resolution dated August 21, 1975 revising the Selection® Grade Pay scale to one of 2000-125-2250, By its earlier Resolution dated 23-9:1969, the Govern- ment also sanctioned five temporary posts of District Judges in the same scale of . Rs. 900-1800 for inspection of subordinate Courts and tackling the problem of cor- ; ruption. The High Court had laid down certain guidelines for posting a District
Judge as-a n Anspecting District Judge and they are (i) that the District Judge should have put in at least three year's as District Judge and should have worked a§ such in-any of the districts, (ii) that his administrative capacity should be relatively high * and (iii) that he should have a reasonable fength of service ahead of him asa District Judge till his retirment.
nN
; * &®
The appellant was enrolled as an Advocate on December 14,1951. In response to the Notification inviting applications for the purpose of recruiting member of the Bar directly as District Judges under Rule 5(2) (1) (b) of the Rules, the appellant applied for one of the posts and was also successful in getting selected and appoined as an Assistant Judge by notification issued on 2-1-1967..On February 19, 1973, the appellant was appointed to officiate in the cadre. of District Judges and’ later confirmed as a District Judge with effect from August, 1, 1975. The seniority of the appellant was fixed on the basis of his actuat apDpIAMIEA as ‘District Judge in April 1973.
BNR
| The appellant filed a “sett petition under Article 226 of the constitution conten-
‘ding’: (i) that he.was entitled to reckon for purposes of his seniority in the cadre of . District Judges the period during which he worked as an Assistant Judge in accor- dance with the proviso to sub clasuse (b) of clause (i) of sub rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Bombay Judicial Recruitment Rules, 1956, and (iJ that he ‘was entitled to get the salary and allowances in the Selection grade scale,or to be posted as an Tnspecting Judge. Both the contentions were negatived by the High Court and hence the appeal.
by special leave of the Court, — ; i aA
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court,
HELD 1. Due to laches and absence of satisfactory explanatidn for the delay of nearly nine years, the question of the correctness of the seniority assigned
* to the petitions seodiants in the year 1973 cannot be looked into. [708 A tos ot
* 21. The anpetiane’ is entitled to the pay in the selection grade pay scale from the date on which.the immediate Junior (seniority being counted on the length of
| >. Pn 2) ww 4 at
A’:
-" "DA, GURSAHANI ?. MAHARASHTRA =, |. 705
- continuous officiation in the cadre of District Judges) ‘commenced, to draw salaty
“flowing therefrom. {718 C-D] « os os ° e a P
= . . “Ee x F : s = & ‘ ‘ *
* s : 4 Bs 4
2s 2 The “two: ‘Resolations of the. Government sanctioning six = of. ‘selec: tion grade District Judges did not indicate that there was any process of promotion !
" by selection or otherwise from the cadre of District: Judges to the cadre of selection ' *
_ grade District Judges involved ple sanctioning the selection grade pay. scale: There | ; was no question of even crossing the efficiency bar. The said selection grade scale‘ ‘was: sanctioned only to mitigate: the hardship caused: by stagnation at.the highest
7 _in the selection grade pay scale,-He-is also. entitled te all other consequential relief.
level of the original pay scale ie. Rs. 1800, It was just a time-scale and an ‘extension .
or, projection of the pay-scale of Rs, 900- 1800 applicable to the cadre of District Jud: ves but confined’ to six persons in all. The sanctioning of selection grade. pay” uscale for District Judges has nothing to-do with the creation of the posts of Inspecting District Judges either. The true legal position is that the first six persons in the seniority. list of judges based on the Iength of continuous officiation in the cadre of
Disirict Judges can only be recipionts of salary in the sélection grade pay scale,’
there being only six such selection’ grade sanctioned. {710 G-H, 711-A-B]
* ‘
_. 23. When it is hold : that the selection- grade District Judges, do not constitute a separate cadre, the High Court . cannot in exercise of its general “powers of. contro! under Article 235 of the Constitution withhold the increment; beyond Rs, 1809 in the selection grade pay scale unless there is a. tule oran executive -instruction. which authorises it to do #0. The selection grade post is not a post to which promoa Yon has to be made nor:is there any efficiency bar rule attached to it. "Further it is Hoe shown that the Governor - had issued any executive, instructions, enabling the © High Court to withheld increments in the extonded pay scale which is in this case called as-aelection grade pay . scale, The j pay scale to which a judicial officer i is? * entitled is a condition of service which can be regulated by a statute or rules made under. the proviso to . Article 309 or by executive insttuctions issued under
Sn!
*
<
Article 162 of the Constitution. It cannot come within the range of the expression .
* ‘contro? in Article 235 of the Constitution. Iti is only where there is such a law, rule:
- of executive instruction, the High Court’ ‘may act ‘under Article 235 of the Constitutution to “sanction i or to rafuse to ‘sanction it, {717 C-FI a mG 7 ‘i ‘9% fl . al
Tn the present case the mere nomenclature given fs fis ensidal pay scale as — the selection. grade pay scale does not lead. to the inference ‘that there is an aesieiie of selection involved i in sanctioning it. fh the circuirstances it should be treated as
_ just an extended pay scale which forms part of the pay scale of Rs. 900-1800 as clari- fied in-the two Government orders. sanctioning the selection grade posts. Thé refusal on the part of the sail Court to Sanction nia selection grade pay scale to’ the
> a ” = ‘ 1
’
bcs
@
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984] 2s.c.Rr_ appellant when it became due automatically on the ground that he was not ‘found fit to be sanctioned that scale of.pdy is errorneous. [717 G-H 718 A]
Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [1968] 1S8.C.R. 111; Lalit Mohah Deb & others v. Union of-India & Others AIR 1972. SC 951 B.S. Yadav & Others etc. v, State of Haryana & others etc. [1981] I S.C.R. 1024 referred to. - o ‘ ~
3:1. The High Gown had not c create any new cadre of Thepeetne District
.\ Judges and that.it was only for the purpose of facilitating a brief and easy reference nN
| en to such officers as were Going inspection work under a scheme evolved by the High
. , s
Court for maintaining the efficiency of the Judicial Service that they’ were being
‘referred to in common parlance as Inspecting District’ Judges. No rule was/evolved by the High Court to the effect that either the senior most-Judges or those promoted by selection to that cadre should be posted as Inspecting District Judges. Taking _ the these ‘guidelines together, it is possible to post any District Judge who satisfies the three conditions a& an Inspecting District Judge even. though there may be Many District Judges who are senior to him and who also satisfy the abeve conditions. Since admittedly the posts of Inspecting District Judges do not constituic a separate: . ‘cadre superior to the cadre of District Judges, no person posted as an Inspecting ‘District Judgé can claim seniority over a’ District Judge who is not holding such a ’ post on that acu? alone. [712 E-H]}... ay . ~
. " t . 7 ' . 3.2. The High Court in the Judgment under appeal has, committed an error in virtually treating the Inspecting District Judge as equivalant to -selection grade | “District Judges. The creation of the posts of five Inspecting District Judges: had nothing to do with the sanctioning of selection grade pay scale for Distiict Judges, } ' While the selection grade pay scale was sanctioned for six posts of District hidgés " by the two Government Resolutions dated October 21, 1963 and July 20, 1974, the .
five posts of Inspecting District Judges were created by the Government Resolution , dated September 23, 1969: These five posts were not posts with the selection gradé pay scale which had already been brought into force by the Government Resolution of October 21, 1963: It could not also have been the intention of the High Ccurt as well as of the Government at the time of the creation of these posts.of Inspecting
‘District Judges that the five senior-most District and sessions: Judges in the State should instead of, disposing of important judicia! work. be engaged in inspecting a minimum of 35 courts during a year, in writing reports sand in carrying out other administrative work which would leave very little time to engage themselves in judi- cial work. That is also clear from the’ guidelines, laid down for the posting of an ~
‘officer as an-Inspecting Judge which could_be easily satisfied by younger and active members working in the cadre of District Judges. [714 F, 715 H, 716 C-D}
L -
’
»
. . ‘ % : at . ee +
7 3, 3. The High Court also overlooked that’the specific case of the High Court ang, that no separate cadre of-nspecting District Judges had been created, there
-
-D.A. GURSAHANI V. MAHARASHTRA(Venkataramiah, J.) | 707° sy $ ~
+, . could be no ‘accasion to.considér the cas¢ of the appellant. or any other District. A % ms ' * Judge for such promotion. The selection grade District Judges are Only those who a draw pay in pay scale of Rs, 1800-100-2000 for which no promotion is contemplated” .-and that ‘mére posting’as an Inspecting District Judge by itself does not make an - officer so posted superior to other District Judges. The true legal position.is that . _ While the’ first six persons in the seniority list of District Judges based on the length of continuous officiation in the cadre of District Judges can be recipients ‘of salary .. B in the sclection grade pay scale, the posts of Inspecting District Judges and of the ; Registrar néed Not Necessarily be held by’ them. Therefore, the question whether. he ‘appeallant. can be posted as ‘an Inspecting District Judge i is eaten the discretion’ wl. the High Court only. [71s ‘FH, 717 A-B, Hl, :
Ss . p * os , : ' f
Civ, AppreLaTe JURISDICTION: ; Civil Appeal No. 435 ‘of . 1983. ne GBs pte aa -' ‘Appedl by Sect leave from’ the Yadlenent at Order dated’ « the- 30th July, 1982. of the Bombay High Court in writ pettion No.. 63 0f 1982, : . r Dayaram Asanand Gisr Sahni: Appéllant in person, ae iA. Vz ‘Sawant, M,N. Shr of, &. Mt. Shah and P. ‘Sankari ‘ Narayana for the Respondent. ‘ s. .The Judgmeiit of the Court’ was delivered by: _ . ‘Vescexramhsitier, J The two questions urged in: - hig appeal” ee
- filed agaist the judgment of the High. Court of Bombay are whether’ - -¢g ~ the appellant is entitled to reckon f for, putposes of his seniority in the '. cadre of District Judges the period. during which he: had worked as an Assistant Judge in accordatice-with the proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of sub-Rule (2)'of Rule 5-of the Bombay Judigial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to.as ‘the Rules’)and ‘.- whether the appellant is entitled: ‘to get the Salary and allowances in"
. ’ . : as i‘ * roy , . t : 3 .
708 oa SUPREME COURT, REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.r.
the selection gtade scale or to be posted as an Inspecting Judge.
Both the contentions were negatived by the High Couft in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This appeal by ~ special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court.
Fi U
The appellant was enrolled“as an advocate on December 14,
1951. In response to a notification inviting applications for the pur-,
‘pose of rectuiting members of the Bar directly as District Judges under Rule, 5 (2) (i) (b).ofthe Rules, the appellant made an application.
for considering his case also for recruitment a8 a District Fudge.’
“‘Ultimatgly five persons were selected and appointed as Assistant .
Judges by notification issued on January 2, 1967 and the appellant was one of them. All-of them were first posted ae Assistant Judges as per the proviso to-RuleS (2) (i) (b) of the Rules. -On February
‘ 19, 1973, the appe ellant' was appointed to officiate in the cadre of.
District Judges., He was confirmed as a District Judge with effect
-* “from August 1, 1975 as per notification No. A 1274/75 dated December 9,1975. The seniority of the appelleant in the cadre of District Judges .
was fixed on the basis of his actual appointment as District Judge in April; 1973. Tht first contention of the appellant is that on a true construction of Rule- 5 (2) (i) (b) of the Rules, he should be deemed
~ to Rave entered the cadre of District Judges when he was initially oy
" _ recruited as a District Judge and postedas an Assistant Judge under the proviso to Rile 5 (2) (i) (b) of the Rules. This claim of the Pan appellant. has been, rejected by the High Court. We.do not propose
“to consider “this contention on the ground of laches as we ‘do not - find any satisfactory explanation for ‘the delay of neatly nine years on the part of the appellant in questioning the correctness of the
, senionlty assigned to-him in the year 1973.
\ Fs
We shall, however, confine this apptal to the second question namely, whether the appellant i is entitled to the salary and allowances said to be payable to,District J tudges i in the selection grade. In order to decide the above question, it is necessary to deal with ‘the consti-
4 tution ofthe Judicial Service in the State of Maharashtra. The Judi- cial Service of . the State. of Maharashtra ‘consists of two branches-
Rae al namely, (i) the Junior Branch and (ii) the Senior Branch, The Junior ”
Branch consists of the following Class I Officers-(i) Judges of the Small Causes Courts at ‘places other than Bomibay, (ji) Civil Judges
. (Senior-Division), (iii) sae of the Small’ Causes Court at Bombay
Fmt ed
“ .* DA. GURSAHANT 1 vy. MAHARASHTRA Wenkataramiah A 709 ° fe and Metropolitan Magistrates and (iv) Civil Judges aban, Division), and-Judicial Magistrates ‘of the First Class: The Senior Branch con- ~ -
“sists of (i) District Judges, (ii) the Principal Judge and Judges ofthe . .”
“Bombay'City Civil Coutt, (iii) the Chief Judge and the Addl. Chief. Judge: of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, ‘(iv) the Chief - Presidency - Magistrate and the Additional ' Chief. Presidency Magistrate, Bombay ” and (v) the Assistant Judges. - The Metropolitan’ Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Bombay is also a member of the Maharashtra Judicial Service.
3 ~~” Rule 4 of the Rules provides’ for the method of appointment to the :
post in the Junior Branch including Metropolitan Magistrates, Juve- —_
_urz~ nile Court, Bombay, -Rule § of the Rules deals with the methed of recruitment td the Senior Branch. a® at, as . ‘ ae yee” so ‘
& pe zs . -
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. relates to the recruitment °> |
Ruse * to the cadre of District. usoeN and Judges of the Bontbay: aed Civil, oa. It reads : a cae
“5, 2). Distt Sods and Tacges.ct of the Boitbay City Civil
_ Court ‘ wm, a0) Disttict: Fudges !_Appointnents fo the posts: of Dist kx x ‘ict + Judges shall be madesby the Governor- Be x es ene ‘om os ‘ , al ‘ = fo 3 - ;
“4 | “from the members of the Junior Branch who have ordinarily | 7 ee sores: as ‘Assistant Judg es, and: 7
"bers of the Bar who have. practised as Advocates or Pleaders |
0b) on the secendmendidinn of the High Court from ‘men
(a) in consultation with « the’ High Court by promotion
‘ for not: less than seven years. in the High Cont or Courts Bs on a " subordinate thereto : Prey
Z "than forty-five years, fifty years in the case of a person belonging to a- community tecognised as backward by Government °
‘for the purposes of recruitment ‘tial! first bs appoints to a
_-Provided . that persons recruited at thé age of not more at we a
= * _* : ; . o ‘10° . . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . _-11984} ‘2 SER.
work as Assistant Judge for such ‘period as may be decided by Government on the merits of his case on the recommenda-
‘tions of the High Court before he is appointed as a District Judge:
”
~Brovided further that ordinarily ‘the. prspoutah of sta _ filled in by. promotion, underc lause (a) and those by appoint- ment from members of the Bar under clause (b) shall be a0;
50. 2 ;
s *
‘Jt may be noted here that: there is no separate cadre of selec-.
tion’grade District Judges or of Inspecting District Judges referred ‘to in the Rules which are’ framed under the proviso to Article 369 "of the. Constitution. . The scale of pay.of District Judges prier te . Fuly 1, 1962 was Rs. 900-50-1000- “60-1600-50-1800, i
On — ZI, 1963 on, the recommendation of’ the ‘tigh..
Court, the State Government passed a resolution, the relevant part ef - which reads as follows: \ ay
«Resolution: ‘Govemment is pleased to sanction one post of District Judge in the- Selection Grade of Rs, 1800-100-2000 in the cadre of District Judges with effect’ from the Ast July, 1962. As the Selectton Grade is © the part of . the pay scale of Rs. 900-50-1000-60-1600- . 50-1800, applicable to the cadre’ of District Judges, an . officer drawing pay in this grade shall also be entitled to the. special pay, if any, attached to the post held by
- him, subject to the condition that pay plus special pay * does not exceed: Rs. 2000/-.” (emphasis added)
; The resolution set out above only stated that one District Judge .- in the selection grade will draw salary in the scale of Rs. 1800-160- 2000 with effect from July 1, 1962. It also stated that. this scale was a part of the pay scdle of Rs. 900-50-1000-60-1600-50-1800 appli- “ cable to’ the cadre of District Judges? It did not indicate that there ‘was, any process of promotion by selection or otherwise from the ‘cadre of District Judges to the cadre of selection grade District Judges ; “= , r- — : “4 oe
_o#
D. A GURSABNI ¥, MAHARASHTRA (Venkataramia, ns ea 711
‘involved’ while sanctidning the selection grade pay scale. - “phere was no question of even crossing the efficiency bar. ‘It appears-that. the. . said selection grade scale was “sanctioned only to mitigate the. -hard-_ ship, caused by stagnation at the highest level of - the: original. pay scale i.¢. at Rs. 1800. It was just.astime-scale and an extension oF x . - e € a as
“Resolution: Government is pleased to sanction five ° . additional ‘posts of Disttict- Judges in the selection . . - grade of Rs..’1800-100-2090 in the -cadie of District x ‘Judges with effect from, the Ist August, 1974, | As the Selection Grade “is the part ‘of the pay scale of Rs. 900-. 50-1000-60-1600- 50-1800, applicable to the cadre. of - District’ Judges, an officer drawing ‘pay in this gtade ‘ shall also be entitled to the special pay, if any, attach- | ‘ ed to the post ‘held by him, subject to the condition, that pay plus special pay does not exceed Rs.. 2000.” Paphaate ae a,
Ja
‘ projection: of the pay scale. of Rs. 900-1800 applicable’ to the cade — of District Judges but’ confined t6 one. person. The above resolu-.- . tion was followed by another resolution of the State Government’
dated July 20, 1974, the material part at which read’as follows:
. "This resolution was amuiea in the. saine manner’ as the cartier’ oe _~one but the number of selection grade posts was increased by five.
Phus there were in all six posts. of seléction ‘grade District Judges - imho could draw,salary at the pay scale attached to. it.
' aT
= -Consequént upon the revision of pay scales of officers of the: , saat of .the Indian Administrative Service ‘the State Government modified the pay scale- of the selection grade District Judges with:
effect from January 1, 1973 by the resolution dated August al, ‘1975, the relevant’ part, of which reads thus: "= * sesslation: Government i is pleased to direct that ar the revised Selection Grade I. A.S.. pay scale of Rs. 2000-125/2-2250- should be made applicable to the
‘Selection Grade ‘District aneae with effect from ‘1-1- ~ 1973..
72 aa SUPREME COURT-REPORTS.° ° — [1984]'2S.C.R
‘2. Government is also pleased to ‘dircct that District “
/ Judges ‘in the Selection Grade posts, should be allowed to draw special pay, if any, attached to the post held . by them, subject to the condition that pay plus special pay does not exceed Rs. 2450/-.’ ;
| J!
* There was, “ however,’ no other alteration in the conditions of * service relevant to the subject of, selection grade District Judges.
In so far as the Inspecting District Judges are concerned, it “is seen ¢hat the specific case of the High Court as sét out in the
‘affidavit of Shri Makarend Shankar Vaidya, Additiorial Registrar . (Inspection). High Court of Bombay ‘is that the High Court had not created any new cadre of Inspecting District. Judges and that it
-was only for the purpose of facilitating a brief and easy reference — _ to such officers as_were doing inspection work under a scheme evolved
-by the High Court for - maintaining the efficiency of the Judicial’ - ’ service that they were being referred to-in common parlance as
Inspecting District Fudges. No rule was evolved by the High.Court to the effect that either the senior most Judges or those promoted by selection to that cadre should be posted as Inspecting D istrict Fudges.
It is, however, stated by the deponent of this affidavit that the High: Court had laid down certain guidelines for posting a District Fudge as an Inspecting District Judge and they: are (i) that the District -
Judge should have put in at least three years as District Judge and
- Should. have worked as such in any of..the districts, (ii) that his adminstrative capacity should be relatively high and (iii) that he should have a reasonable length of service ahead of him as a Dist:
" . gict-Judge till his retirement. _ Taking’all these guidelines together, it
- is ‘possible to post any District Judge who satisfies the three condi- tions’ as an Inspecting District’. Judge even though there “may be
.many District Fudges who are senior to him.and who also satisfy the “above conditions, Since admittedly the posts of Inspecting District the
Judegs do not constitute a separate cadre superior to the cadre of District Judgse, no person posted as an Inspecting District Judge can claim seniority over a District Judge who is not holding such a post on that gtound alone, This is also manifest from the statement ia paragiaph. 52 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court (respondent No. 2) which reads thus ;
aed
. .
aM ge?
m4
D.A. GURSAHANT ¥, MAHARASHTRA , Wenkaaraniah e D.
“Tsay, that j it is false to say. that the respondent No.
2, has created an ‘erroneous impression in the’ cadres of the judiciary, public ‘and litigants that District . * Judges appointed under the scheme of inspection ‘of: , courts are. superior to, other District Judges and this has caused insecurity in the minds of District | Judges.”
be On the tbat questfon, the High Court has observed in, its -_ _ jildgment under appeal thus : an
= . ‘ _ 4
* “Government of Sivimeashes. inlaw sail, iudiclary, Department’ Resolution, dated: 23rd September, 1969 and ° the. earlier the. Resolution dated™2Ist October, 1963 had sanctioned the posts of District Judges in:
the Selection Grade. By the same Resolution addi- ; ~. tional posts of Joint Judges were also ‘sanctioned. It - " appears from the affidavit filed by the respondents that scheme’ for conducting the surprise inspection of: the ‘ ‘courts in the State outside the Greater . Bombay was.
introduced in the yar 1969 with” the folleeatie™objects ; . 78 owe *, :
ca .
“1, . Prevention; detection and reoting out the corrup-
, tion from courts and their administrative offices. -
. ne
« 2 ‘ = -
2. Enforcement of discipline and punctuality among
Judges and staff and generally: ensuring that the’. - ‘allocated work both judicial and administrative is’ -
_efficiently done ‘and delay i in disposal i is eliminated. ° i.
3. Ensuring strict observance. of. civil, and criminal manuals.
- ‘ ie ge
4: LGiiceiiy of résivters, and accounts and ensuting a that they" are properly: and jpunstually maintained, ~ “and - . #
4, id
W4 | _ SUPREME COURT RERORTS 2 [1984] 2 SCR.
5. Ensuring the welfare of Judges and the staff includ- ing the provision of suitable healthy and sanitary:
7 conditions in courts,’ adequate housing ‘accom-* modation for the: Judges and the staff,: and” gene- ; -. tally towards providing conditions: of service with- _ in our limitations.” .
, As. part of this’ scheme Sivticts officers posted as + District Judges at Pune, Thane, Aurangabad, Akola” and Nagpur are entrusted. with the work of surprise inspection ‘of courts, Bach of. these District ! Judges is. expected -to carry out surprise inspection: work inS districts. He is expected to carry, out the surprise — inspection of at least 35 courts in. year and’ submit .. _ his inspection notes to the High Court. These inspec-
. tion notes are scrutinised by the High Court and deci- «.
. Sions on these inspéction notes are also faken by the
High Court. Regular inspection work is carried out by Ss 7
‘ 4 . the District Judgé concerned. From the affidavit-giled. “by the! Additional Registrar (Inspection) of the High Court, it is further clear that no new cadre or posts of © Inspecting District Judge are created, Though in a. common -paralance they are called’ Inspecting District. Tudges ‘they are merely District. Tudees doing the work of surprise Inspection.”
Having held thus, the High Court committed an: error in virtually: treating the Inspecting District Judges as equivalent to _selection grades ‘District Judges by the following observations made ‘by it in paragraph 11 of its ae sae -
“As to how the District udges are selected ‘or’
doing’ this inspection work is also explained by the
5 respondents’ in. their “affidavits. From the submission ‘made in the affidavits it is quite clear that guidelines ~ have been laid down for selectipg the District. Judges working under the scheme of Inspection of the Con: iS.
While selecting a person guidelines kept in vi" re
*(i) that the District Tudges: should have put in at conan
‘ § “ wit mw t- » ma to 4, my . = < vod mM ~~) “ @
“RN y
~.!
og years as District Judge, and should have worked as such in any of the districts, (2) that his administrative’ capacity should. be relatively high and (3) that he should. “
_ have reasonably long seryice’ahead as Judge till his ‘ retirement. ” It is also clarified in the affidavit * that’ these “guidelines® necessarily imply. his competence in’ judicial work and also his general performance. The assessment of relatively - high. administrative capacity ° in particular implies in the context his aptitude for inspection work, his attitudes towards the bar, litigants, | judicial officers. and ‘staff. working: in the inspecting courts.. It is also submitted, that while’ assessing . * the eligibility of a’ person with. reference td these » guidelines, the cases of judicial officers have~been con- __ sidered all along in the order of seniority of the person in the cadre of District Judges.. Since no separate “cadre is created, of judicial officers who are asked to do the work of inspection under the scheme, no separate, ~ rules ‘are ‘framed, but: guidelines: are laid down by the High Court, . Similarly guidelines are laid down for
, awarding the selection brade to. the District Judge and normally all the 5 Inspecting . District. Judges and the Registrar are placed in the cadre of Selection Grade
* District Tadges unless there’ are compelling reasons to - the contrary. It is then stated in the affidavit of ‘the respondents that th2 petitionet’s.case was-considered ony: four occasions between 1979 to 1981 fer being-assigned
__ this inspection work and for being Placed in the selec- tion grade but he has not been found suitable.”
a
5 The, infirmities noticeab! le in the above passage are these: The’. High ‘Court has failed to notice that, the creation. of the posts of five Inspecting District Judges: had nothing to do with the sanctioning of selection. grade pay scale for District Judges. While, the selection grade pay scale was sanctioned: for six “posts of District Judges by the two Government Resolutions dated October :21, 1963 and July 20, 1974, the.fve posts of Inspecting’ District Judges were created.
_. by the Government resolution dated Se ae 33. 1969. the relevant -
, part of which read ‘thus: “
1 *S
«Resolution: Government is pleased to direct that - ’ ; e ‘ ' , aS . os * o e
DA - GURSAHANI v. ss ina Patna, a 715 Oo gp
716. » f SUPREME COURT REPORTS five temporary posts df District j udges i in the scale of
Rs» .990-50-1000-60-1600-50-1800 showd be -created fora period of upto the 28th February, 1970° for | inspection of subordinate courts -and tackling the: pro- / blem of corruption.”
* These sve posts ‘were not posts with the selection grade pay scale which-had_ already been brought into force by the Government Resolution of October 21,-1963. It could not also have been the intention of the High Court as- well as of the Government at-the time of the creation or these posts of - Inspecting District Judges that the five senior most District and Sessions Judges in the State should ingtead -of disposing of important judicial work .be engaged in inspecting a minimum of 35° courts during a year, in writing
‘reports and in carrying out other administrative work which would - leave very little time to engage themselves in judicial work. That is also clear from the guidelines laid down for the posting of an officers as an Inspecting Judg2 which could be easily satisfied by . ‘ younger and active members working in the cadre of District Judges.
a
The “High Court ‘also svertoaked that the specific case of the ” High Court, being that no separate cadre of Inspecting District ' Judges had -been created, there. could be no ‘occasion to consider
- the ‘case of the appellant or any other District Judge for such pro- _ motion. The observations that “since no separate cadre is created of *. judicial officers who are asked to do the work of inspection under - the scheme, no separate rules are framed but guidelines, are laid down by the High Court. Similarly guidelines ate leid down for awarding the selection grade to the District’ Judge and normally all the 5 Inspecting District Judges and the Registrar are placed in the cadre of selection grade District Judges unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary” in the above passage are again out cf place. The above conclusion. would have been possible only on procf cf ihe following facts yiz.’ (1) that the: selection grade ‘District Judges
' and the Inspecting District Judges be slong to the. same cadre and (2) , that“they belonged to a cadre higher than the cadre of District “ Judges or that there was a need for going through the process of s¢lection to sanction -selection grade pay scale. We have already
- shown that the selection grade District Judges are only ‘those who draw pay in Pay seq of Rs. ceed 100-2000 tor which no promotion —
[1984 28.0.R.
-_
{-
-y
A,
Ye in Sant. Ram Sharma vy. State of Rajasthan'& nr) -and'in Lalit ~ Mohan Deb & Ors. vy. Union of. India’ & Ors. énabling the High .. Court to withhold increments ‘in the extended pay scale which isin this case ¢alled as selection grade pay scale.. The pay scale to which. © at foe Bes
“, D.A. GURSAHNI V. MAHARASHTRA (Venkataramiah, J.) - .717* of ¢ ‘ is contemplated and that mere posting as an Inspecting. District Judge . by itself does not make an officer sb ‘posted superior to other District’... - ‘Judges. “The true legal position: is that while the first six persons in: 7 the seniority list of Disttict Judges based on the length of continous’ '. Officiation’ ‘in the cadre of District Judges can be- recipients of salary
Oe in the selection grade, pay scale, the -posts of “Inspecting District .
—*. Judges and of the Registrar-need not necessarily be held by them.
' on}
“rs,
=? 5 When it is"held that the selection. eride District Judges do not constitute a separate cadre, the High Court cannot’ in exercise “ofits general powers. of control under Article 235 of the Constitu- tion: -withHold : the increment beyond Rs. :1800: ‘in. the selection grade:
eis pay ‘scale. unless there is a. rule or an ‘executive’ instruction which authorises it-to do so. . As mentioned. earlier, the selection grade post - _ is not a post to which promotion has to be. made nor is there any - efficiency bar rule: attached to’ it. “Further it is not shown that the. .
Governor had issued any executive instructions ‘as it had been done-.
a judicial officer i is entitled is a condition.of service ‘which | ‘can be regulated. by® a Statute or rules, madé under the proviso to Article 309 or. by executive instructions issued under. Article 162° of ihe
Constitution: . It. cannot come within the range .of the expression
étc. V. State. of Haryana &- Ors, eic,®) | It is. only, wwhere there is
-> such a law, ru‘é or executive ifistruction, the High Court may act under Article 235 of the Constitution to sanction it or to, refuse to
‘ sanction it. Weare of the view that in the ‘present. -case the mere’ . nomenclature given to the extended pay scale as the seléction grade a
| “pay scale does not léad to the inference that there is an’ clement of. selection ‘involved i in sanctioning it. In the circumstances it should © bé’ treated as just an extended pay scale which forms part of the pay.
scale of Rs. 900-1800 as clarified in. two Governmerit orders sanc-
‘tioning: the'selection grade-posts. In view of the foregoing while the question whether the appellant can be posted as an ‘Inspecting District
# rn) [1968] 1 S.C.R. il moe Vo,
.Q) ALR 1972 8.C, 995) - “@) [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1024
‘control? in Article 235 ‘of the Constitution. (See B.S. Yadav & Ors.
judge is within the’ discretion of the High Court, the refusal on. the a
718 : SUPREME COURT RERORTS [1984] 2S.0.R.| put of the. High Gourt to sanction the selection grade pay scale to * the app2llant- when it become due automatically on, the ground that he was not found fit to be’ sanctioned that scale of pay is erroneous. In view of: what has been stated above, we need not go into the _ other: ‘poltits raised by the appellant regarding the above question.
é
« o
_ In the result the judgment of the High Court is set aside in so far as the question of sanctioning. of the selection grade pay scale
‘to the appellant is concerned. It is hereby declared that the appellant is entitled to the pay in the selection grade. pay scale from the — date on which his immediate junior (seniority being counted on the |
- length of continuous officiation in the’ cadre of District Judgesy com- menced to draw salary in the selection grade pay scale. He is also entitled to all other consequential reliefs flowirig theref rom. A writ staal issue q the above terms. :
to
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part.” No costs, ¢ z. . as . . .
SRO uy . * Appeal partly allowed.
Cea