Holding

Where no vacancy existed in the direct‑recruit quota, the promotion‑by‑limited‑competitive‑examination process could lawfully proceed and the High Court’s setting aside of that process was erroneous.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the selection process for Additional District Judges in Jharkhand, where 50% of posts were filled by promotees on merit‑cum‑seniority and the remaining 50% were to be split equally between promotion through a Limited Competitive Examination and direct recruitment from the Bar. The petitioners argued that the High Court wrongly required the 2008 selection to adhere to the 25:25 split despite there being no vacancy in the direct‑recruit quota at that time. The Court held that the amended 2004 Rules applied prospectively, and the factual position as of 30 April 2008 showed no vacancy for direct recruits, so the promotion‑by‑limited‑exam process was valid. It further clarified the distinction between "post" and "vacancy" and ruled that the petitioners had no locus to challenge the 2008 process. Consequently, the High Court’s order setting aside the 2008 selection was set aside, the civil appeal was allowed, and the connected writ petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the amended Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules (effective 20 August 2004) to the 2008 selection process
Whether a vacancy existed in the direct‑recruit quota as of 30 April 2008
The correct interpretation of "post" versus "vacancy" for applying the roster ratio
The locus standi of candidates who could only apply under the direct‑recruit quota to challenge the promotion‑by‑limited‑exam process

Subjects

judicial recruitmentroster systempromotionlimited competitive examinationdirect recruitmentseniorityvacancy versus postJharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rulesratio 50:25:25

Judgment

(2016] 11 S.C.R. 58

A SRIKANT ROY & ORS.
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(CivilAppealNo. 10874of2016)
B NOVEMBER 16, 2016
[T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.)
Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service - Selection
process - Selection for the posts of Additional District Judges -
c Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment
and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001 - rr. 5 and 8 - Bifurcation
of posts as per roster system pursuant to amended rules - In terms
whereof, 50% of the posts to be filled up by promotees on the basis
of merit-cum-seniority - Remaining 50% posts to be bifurcated
D equally, i.e. 25% by way of selection through Limited Competitive
Examination and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar - Selection
process initiated in August 2008 for filling up posts of ADJs by
promotion through Limited Competitive Examination - Challenge
to - High Court held that since 50% of the posts were already filled
up by promotees on merit-cum-seniority basis, the left over 50%
E
vacancies should be filled by promotion through Limited Competitive
Examination and by the direct recruits in equal proportion - 011
appeal, held: Amended Rules providing for the ratio to be
maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became
effective on 20'" August 2004 and had prospective application - In
F terms of the consistent stand of the State Government and the
affidavit filed by High Court (Administrative Side), it is clear that
the notification for filling up posts of ADJ by promotion issued in
2008 was on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct
recruit quota was available - High Court committed manifest error
in not considering these relevant facts as to vacant posts in relation
G
to direct recruit quota - Distinction between "post" and "vacancy"
overlooked by High Court - Once it is found that no vacancy against
the quota of direct recruilment was available at the relevant time,
private respondents who were eligible to participate in the selection
process through direct recruitment alone and not by promotion, had
H
58
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 59

no locus to challenge the 2008. selection process - Resultantly, 2008 A
selection process held to be proper and final - Judiciary.
Allowing the leading Civil Appeal and dismissing the three
connected writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When the amended Rules providing for tile
ratio to be.maintained between the promotees and direct recruits B
became effective on 20 1h August 2004 and had prospective
application, the factual position as obtained on 20'h August 2004
would become relevant. [Para 12] [70-G-H]
1.2 In view of Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed
prior to the amendment of 20.08.2004 appointments made prior c
to 2004 were governed by the Rules as applicable at the relevant
time. As per that dispensation, the direct recruit~ quota was 33%
of the total posts. That was obviously in excess of 25% now
specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 20.08.2004).
Notably, the State of Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in D
C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court stating that no vacancy
against 25% quota for direct recruitment existed in the State of
Jharkband at that time. This affidavit was filed on 261h August
2008 after the amended Rules were notified and came into force
w.e.f. 201hAugust 2004. Thus, notification for filling up of 34 posts
of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive E
Examination from amongst. the members of Jharkhand
Subordinate Judges was issued in 2008 on the basis that no
vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available.
That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit filed by the
High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment committed F
manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about the
vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004, before recording
a finding against the High Court and the State Government and
to reject their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct
recruit was available as on 30.04.2008. [Paras 13, 14) [71-A; 72-
C-F] G
1.3 Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct
recruitment was available as on 30'h April, 2008, no fault can be
found with the selection process commenced by the High Court
for appointment in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial
Service by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 11 S.C.R.

A Competitive Examination. The High Court in the impugned
judgment glossed over the effect of filling up the vacancies in the
ratio of 25:25, which inevitably would exceed the quota of posts
for direct recruits as on 30.04.2008. That would disturb the roster
point and was impermissible in terms of Rule 8 as amended. [Para
16] [76-A-B]
B
1.4 Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota
of direct recruit as on 30'h August 2008, the writ petitioners
(respondents 4 to 11 in the leading appeal), who could participate
in the selection process for direct recruit alone and not by way of
promotion through Limited Competitive Examination, had no
c locus to challenge the selection process of 2008. [Para 18] [78-
A-B]
2. The High Court overlooked the distinction between
"post" and "vacancy". If the requisite posts were already
exhausted by the direct recruits against the earmarked quota for
D direct recruitment, merely because some vacancies occur, it would
not be open to the aspiring candidates against the direct recruit
quota to challenge the selection process commenced for the in
service judicial officers by promotion through Limited
Competitive Examination. [Para 19] [78-B-C]
E All India Judges 'Association & Ors. l~ Union of India
& Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 (2) SCR 712; Rakhi
Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors. (2010) 2
SCC 637 : 2010 (2) SCR 239 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
F 2002 (2) SCR 712 referred to Para 15
2010 (2) SCR 239 referred to Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10874
of2016.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2008 of the High Com1
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPS No. 4159 of 2008
WITH
W. P. (C) No. 300 of2013
W. P. (C) Nos. 27 and 325 of 2014.
1-1 Nidhesh Gupta, Amrendra Sharan, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 61

Singh, Sr. Advs. Raunak Singh, Amit Kumar, Shaurya, Puneet Varshney, A
Rajeev Sharma, Sum it Kumar, Dr. Kai lash Chand, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, ·
Krishnanand Pandeya, Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Devashish
Bharuka, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh, Ms. Madhur
Dadlani, Jayesh Gaurav, Anil K. Jha, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd.
Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Shiv Ram Sharma, Ms. Asha Gopalan
B
Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted.
2. This common judgment will dispose all the four petitions.
c
3. The leading Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petiti{)n
(Civil) No.9883/2009, is directed against the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(S) No.4159/
2008 dated 291hAugust 2008. By the said Writ Petition, the writ petitioners
(respondents 4 to 11 herein) had challenged the selection process for
filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judges through Limited D
Competitive Examination scheduled on 31" August 2008; and also 18
posts of Additional District Judges from the promotee officers on the
basis ofmerit-cum-seniority scheduled on 23'd August 2008. The writ .
petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) were appointed purely against
temporary and ex-cadre posts on ad-hoc basis, as Presiding Officer, E
Fast Track Courts in the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge in
the year .2002. According to the said writ petitioners, the impugned
selection process was improper and not in conformity with the mandate
of the amended Rules requiring ratio of 50:25:25 - by promotion from
amongst the Sub-Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing
of a suitability test; by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the F
basis ofmeritthrough a Limited Competitive Examination of Sub-Judges
having not less than 5 years service; and by direct recruitment from the
Bar on the basis of written test and viva-voce conducted by the High
Court, respectively. The said writ petitioners asserted that if the impugned
selection process was allowed to be taken forward, it would be in breach G
of the relevant Recruitment Rules and also infringe the mandate of
adhering to the roster as per Rule 8 of the amended Rules. The main
contention of the said writ petitioners was that the High Court was
erroneously linking the ratio of posts to fill up the vacancies by giving
retrospective effect to the amended Rules, which has come into force
w.e.f. 20'h August 2004. The challenge before the High Court in the writ H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20l6] l l S.C.R.

A petition, as has been noted in the opening para l of the impugned judgment
was limited to the quota assigned for the Limited Competitive Examination
from amongst the (Subordinate Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division)
scheduled to be held on 31" August 2008. The High Court in paragraph
4 of the impugned judgment has noted that the challenge is only to the
extent of 42 posts of Additional District Judges which had to be filled up
B
by following the roster system in the ratio of25:25. Those posts were
required to be bifurcated equally between the promotees from the rank
of Subordinate Judges by conducting Limited Competitive Examination
and direct recruits from the Bar in the ratio of 25:25. In paragraph I 0
onwards of the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the plea of
c the said writ petitioners and issued directions to the High Court to fill up
the vacancies, as directed. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment
reads thus:
"I 0. Having heard the counsel for the parties at some length
in the light of the explanation in regard to the bifurcation of
D the posts as per roster syste111 to be followed in pursuance to
the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, which was
a111ended in view of the directions of the Supre111e Court, we
are of the view that 50% of the posts having already been
filled up by the pro111otes on the basis of the merit-cu111-
seniority due to which 41 posts were filled up, the left over
E 42 posts have to be bifurcated into 25% and 25% 111eaning
thereby 21 posts will have to be assigned to be filled up by
promotion fro111 the Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior
Division) on the basis of Limited Co111petitive Examination
and left over 21 posts which constitute 25% of the available
F posts will have to be filled up by the direct recruits as that is
the clear mandate of the Supreme Court in the case referred
to herei11before in pursuance to which the Jharkhand
Superior Judicial Service Rules, was also amended in 2001
and became effective in 2004. In fact, the petitioners have
informed this Court that the respondents have not on(v invited
G /he applications for all the 42 posts to be filled up by the
Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive
Examination, but even the posts that might be available i11
the year 2009 have also been included in the advertisement,
which is clearly not in consonance with the direction of the
H Supreme Court and is also contrary to the Jharkhand
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 63
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

Superior JudiCial Service Rules, 2001. A
11. Hence, this court is left which no option, than to set
aside the examination process, which is scheduled to be held
on 31. 08. 2008 and further direct the respondents to bifurcate
the left over posts into the ratio of half and half, i.e. 25%
and 25% equally and thereafter isst(ed a fresh advertisement B
for filling up 21 posts by the Subordinate Judges on the
basis of Limited Competitive Examination and the rest 21
posts will have to be filled up by direct recruits for which
exercise will have to be undertaken in future by the
respondents.
c
12. As no other point has been pressed in this writ petition
and the only dispute that has been raised is in record to
bifurcation of posts contrary to the roster principle, referred
herein before, and the same having been found to be correct,
the notification issued on the internet for filling up the posts
of Additional District Judges is quashed and set aside. D
Consequently, the process of examination to be held on
31.8.2008 is also set aside. The writ petition, accordingly, is
allowed, but without any order as to costs. "
4. The appellants, who were working as Subordinate Judges at
the relevant time and were otherwise eligible to appear in the Limited E
Competitive Examination for filling up the notified vacancies by way of
promotion, have approached this Court to question the aforesaid decision.
5. The cognate Writ Petitions involve overlapping issues. The
petitioners in these Writ Petitions, however, participated in the selection
process -Jf20 I 0 commenced on the basis of an advertisement No. I/20 I 0 F
for the post of Additional District Judge from the Bar. These petitioners
did not succeed in getting appointed, as the first 8 candidates in the merit
list exhausted the 8 vacancies notified for the relevant period. The said
writ petitioners were, however, placed at serial No.9 onwards in the
merit list. According to these petitioners, some more posts were available
G
for direct recruits from the Bar. That contention, essentially, is dependent
on the outcome of Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.9883/2009 wherein the selection process of2008 is the subject
matter. According to these writ petitioners, the High Court had failed to
notify the correct number of vacancies for 20 I 0. The correct number of
vacancies in 20 I 0 to be tilled up by direct recruitment ought to be 13. H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · r2o 16111 S.C.R.

A Indeed, the writ petitioners have made their own assumption to arrive at
this number of vacancies, as is spelt out from the averments in the Writ
Petition.
6. The Registrar General of the High Court has filed reply
affidavits. The stand of the High Court (Administration Side) was that
8 no vacancy for direct recruit from the Bar existed as on 20.04.2008. It is
stated that in the year 2008, the actual vacancy as on 301h April, 2008
and anticipated vacancy till 31" March 2009 were notified on the official
Website of the High Cou1t. The said Notification reads thus:
Actual Vacancy as on 30.04.2008 Anticipated
Vacancy till
c 31.03.2009
By Promotion Promotion (by way By promotion from
from Sub-Judges of Selection) Sub-Judges on
on basis of metit- through limited basis of merit-cum-
cum-seniority competitive seniotity
examination
D 18 34 11

Note: In the event of issuance of notification by the State
Governmentregarding induction of I 0 Adhoc A.D.Js. of the Fast
Track Courts in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service on regular
basis, in view of the recommendation of the Court made vi de
E letter Nos.6949/Apptt. Dated 3rd November 2007 and 2819/Apptt.
Dated 11.04.2008, the actual vacancies as on 30.04.2009 in the
Promotee Quota shall be reduced to 08."
After initiation of the impugned selection process for 2008, a Writ Petition
No.4159/2008 was filed in the High Court in which directions were issued
F to the High Court to fill up 21 vacancies out of 42 vacancies by promotion
of Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination
and the rest of 21 vacancies by direct recruitment. The matter was,
therefore, referred to the selection committee. In the meantime, however,
the Judicial Officers challenged the decision of the High Court by way
of present S.LP. (Civil) No. 9883/2009 in which interim stay of operation
G of the directions issued by the High Comt was granted on 91h April,·
2009. The said interim order was later modified on 241h September 20 I 0,
in the following terms:
·''List alongwith the batch·of T.C.22 of :!nOJ.
Since the matter has been pending at the stage of
H advertisement of 2008, we modify the order passed by the
..
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 65
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

previous Bench dated 9.4.2009 by directing the process, A
. pursuant to the advertisement of 2008, to continue pending
the hearing and final disposal of this Special Leave Petition.
However, on completion of the exercise, vacancies will not
be .filled till further orders. "
Pursuant to the modification of the interim order, the High Court completed B
the selection process of filling up of the notified vacancies of2008 by
way of promotion. On a further application filed, this Court on S•h August
2011 permitted the High Court to make appointments concerning the
said selection process of2008. The said order reads thus:
"In modification of our order dated 24'" September 2010,
the High Court is free to make appointments subject to the c
result of the special leave petition.
The Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, allowed. "
Pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the High Court submitted
recommendations to the State Government for promotion of3 I Officers
of Sub-Judge Cadre as per the advertisement issued in 2008 to fill up the D
vacancies in terms of Rule 4(b) and 4(c). The High Court submitted
another recommendation to the State Government for promotion of 17
more Officers.
7. It is then asserted by the High Court that when the selection
process of2008 was commenced and completed, there was no vacancy E
for direct recruit quota. The affidavit also refers to the fact that 8 vacancies
of direct quota were notified in the year 20 I 0 vi de High Court
memorandum dated 4'h November 2010 for the relevant period, which
reads thus:
"Actual vacancies in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial F
Service accrued during the period from 18.07.2008 till date
By Promotion Promotion (by By direct Total Vacancies
from Sub-Judges way of Selection) recruitment
on basis of merit- through limited from Bar
cum-seniority ·competitive
Examination G
28 08 or 09 07 or08 44

Memo 7671/Apptt. Dated Ranchi the 4'" November, 2010
Copy forwarded to Scientist (D), N.I.C., Jharkhand High
Court Ranchi. H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] II S.C.R.

A He is requested to put the aforesaid vacancies in the
official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. "
The High Cou11 with a view to fill up those vacancies, commenced
the process vide advertisement No.O I /20 I 0. Pursuant to the said
advertisement, the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions appeared
B in the preliminary examination held oil 291h September 2011 and the main
examination held on 27 1h November 2011 along with other candidates.
Only 32 candidates could qualify the main examination, who were called
for viva-voce held on 3rd February 2012. Out of those candidates, only
15 candidates including the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions
successfully qualified all the three rounds. However, as per the merit
C wise rank of successful candidates, the names of the said writ petitioners
were placed at lower position. Thus, the first 8 meritorious candidates
were recommended for appoi'ntment against the vacant posts to be filled
by the process of direct recruitment. It is also mentioned in the affidavit
that the appointment of the candidates made against the selection process
0 for 2008, the candidates were made aware that their appointment was
subject to the final decision of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9883/2009.
8. It is asserted by the High Cout1 that the writ petitioners in
connected writ petitions, who participated in the subsequent selection
process cannot get any advantage qua the selection process of 2008.
For, they participated in the selection process commenced on the basis
E of advertisement No. I of20 I 0. Similarly, they cannot claim any relief in
respect of fresh vacancy which was notified in the year 2012, vide
Notification dated 22"d March, 2012. That notification reads thus:
''JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. RANCHI
NOTIFICATION
F
No. 102/A. The Vacancies of the Jharkhand Superior
Judicial Service including the future vacancies till
31.12.2012 are hereby notified in the following manner:-
By promotion Promotion (by way By direct recruitment
from Civil Judge of selection) from Bar (25%)-
G (Sr. Division) on through limited under Rule 4(a) of
the basis of competitive Rules, 2001
merit-cum- Examination
seniority (65% )- (I 0%)-under Rule
under Rule 4(b) 4(c) of Rules, 2001
of Rules, 2001
57+7=64 Nil 5 (+8*)
H
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 67
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid 69 A
notified vacancies will also be subject to final decision of
the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No. 988312009.
Also, all the earlier advertised vacancies are hereby recalled
a11d restructured in the above manner. B
"'Note:- The recommendation fo1· fllli11g up of 08 vacancies
of Direct Recruit Quota has already been made to the State
Government for issuance of necessary Notification vide
Letter No. 1959/Apptt. Dated 10.02.2012 and thus the
vacancy under this Quota till 31.12.2012 remains 05(/ive). c
1
Dated: 22'" March, 2012
By Order,
Registrar General"
The vacancy po~ition as on 31" December 2012 was revised and
duly notified vide Notification dated 191h September 2012, which reads D
thus:
"JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI
NOTIFICATION
No.275/A The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior E
Judicial Service till 31.12.2012 as notified vide Notification
No.102/A dated 22"J March 2012 is revised and notified in
the following manner:-

By promotion from Promotion (by way of By direct recruitment
Civil Judge selection) through from Bar (25%)- under F
(Sr.Division) on the limited competitive Rule 4(a) of rules 200 I
basis of merit-cum- examination (10%)-
seniority ( 65%) - under Rule 4(c) of
under Rule 4 (b) of rules, 2001
rules, 2001
68* Nil 08 G

It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid notified
vacancies will subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble
Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No. 988312009.
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 11 S.C.R.

A Note: In the event of the issuance of Notification by the State
Govt. regarding Promotion of 28 Officers of the rank of Civil
Judge (Sr.Division) in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial
Service in view of recommendation of the Court as made
vide letter no.9593/Apptt. Dated 17'1' July 2012, the actual
vacancy as on 31.12.2012 under this quota [i.e. under Rule
B
4(b)} shall be reduced to 40.
By Order
Sdl-
Registrar General
Dated: 19'" September. 2012"
c
9. It is stated that the vacancy position as on 31" December
2012 was notified on the basis of the sanctioned strength of 174 at the
relevant time. That sanctioned strength was later on increased to 191 on
creation of 17 permanent posts of Superior Officers @ 10% of existing
strength. In paragraph 20 of the reply affidavit, the vacancy position as
D calculated on the basis of amended Rules (as amended on 14'h December
2011) has been mentioned as follows:

Sanctioned strength By pro1mtion from PronDtion (by way By direct
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) of selection through recruitment
on the basis of irerit- limited competitive from Bar
E cum-seniority examination
(65%)-Rule 4(b) (10%)-Rule 4(Q (25%)-Rule
4(a)
Sanctioned 124 19 48
Strength-19 I
Present worldng 68 20(-1 *) 36
F strength-124 -
Present v.icancies 56-1*=55 Nil 12
(*excess adjusted)

10. It is then stated that pursuant to the decision of this Court in
Civil Appeal N os.6647-6649/2012 (filed by officers posted as Additional
G District Judges, Fast Track Courts), vide letter dated 20'11 February2013
the State Government was requested to create 13 permanent posts to
accommodate the 22 appellants in the said Civil Appeals on condition
that in the event ofnon qualifying ofany of the appellants in the selection
process to be conducted in terms of the direction given by this Court in
the said decision, the equal number of such created posts of District
H Judge will be abolished. After due consideration, the vacancy position of
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 69
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service was notified vide Notification A
dated 22"d February 2013 which reads thus:
"HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
NOTIFICATION
No.451A. The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial
Service as notified earlier vide Notification No.2751A dated 19'1' B
September, 2012 is hereby recalled and further revised till date in
the following manner:-
By promotion from Promotion (by way By direct recruitment
Civil Judge (Sr. of selection) from Bar(25%)-under
Division)on the basis through limited Rule 4(a)ofrules, 2001
of merit-cum-seniority competitive c
(65%)-under Rule 4(b) examination
ofrules,200 I (10%)-under Rule
4(c)ofRules, 2001
55 Nil 22*+03"=25
It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid notified
D
vacancies will be subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble
Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.98831
2009.
Note:- 1 * 22 Vacancies for the appellants of Civil Appeal
Nos.6647,6648 & 6649 of 2012.
E
2. "03 Vacancies for Direct Recruitment from Bar.
3. Taking into account the 13 posts likely to be createdfrom
the end of the State Government.
By Order
Sdl-A.K.Choudhnary _ F
Registrar General !IC
Dated: 22"d February, 2013
Memo No.16441Apptt.Dated Ranchi, the 22"" February, 2013
Copy forwarded to the lie NJC Cell, High Court of
G
Jharkhand, Ranchi for uploading the above notification in
the official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
immediately.
Sdl-22. 02.2013
Registrar General lie"
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.

A 11. It is also pointed out that the Standing Committee of the High
Court vi de minutes dated 18'11 February 2014 assessed the vacancy
position as on 201h February 2014 as under:

Sanctioned Working Vacancy as
B SI. Strengd1 Strength as on
No Oil 20.02.2014
20.022014
1 By promotion from Civil 134 60 74•
Judge 9Sr.Division) on the (74-4*)=70
basis of merit-cum-seniority
(65%)-under Rule 4(b) of
c rules. 2001
2 Promotion( by way of 21 17 4
selection)through limited
c ompe ti ti ve
examina ti on( I 0%)-under
Rule 4( c) of Rules, 2001
D
3 By direct recruitment from 51 55 Excess 4*
Bar (25%)-under Rule 4(a) (excess
of Rules,200 I may be
adiusted)
E
In other affidavits filed on behalf of the High Court by the Registrar
General, the above factual position has been reiterated.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
The leading appeal concerns the selection process commenced in 2008.
F The High Court has set aside the said selection process on the finding
that 50% of the posts have already been filled up by the promotees on
the basis of merit-cum-seniority and as a result of which the left over 42
vacancies should be filled by promotion from the subordinate Judge/
Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of Limited Competitive
G Examination and by the direct recruits. in equal proportion. There can be
no difficulty in accepting the argument that the amended Rules providing
for the ratio to be maintained between the promotees and direct recruits
became effective on 201h August 2004 and had prospective application.
Thus, the factual position as obtained on 2om August 2004 would become
relevant.
H
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 71
[A. M. KHANWJLKAR, J.]

13. Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed prior to the A
amendment of20.08.2004 read thus:
Rule -4: - Appointment to tile service- Appointment to the
service, which shall in the first instance 01·dinarily
be to the post of additional district judge, shall
be made by the governor, in consultation with 8
High Court:-
(a) By direct recruitment of persons as
recommended by the High Court for such
appointment under clause (2) of Article 233 of
the Constitution of India; and C
(b) By promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis
from amongst the officers belonging to the
Jharkhand service provided that where the merit
of the officers is equal in all respects, seniority
shall prevail and be given weightage. · o
Rule-5: Of tile total posts i11 tile cadre of tile service 67%
sliall be filled in by promotion am/ 33% by <lirect
recruitment:
Provided that the State Government may, in
consultation with the High Court, from time to time E
deviate from the aforesaid percentage in either
direction.
Rule 8:- 8. Seniority:
(a) Seniority inter se of direct recruits shall be
F
determined in accordance with the dates of their
respective appointments to the service.
(b) Seniority inter se of promoted officers shall
be determined on the basis of their seniority as
existing in the Jharkhand Judicial service
immediately prior to his appointment under these G
rules.
(c) If at any time more than one direct recruit is
appointed in the service, the inter se seniority of
such appointees will be determined in accordance
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R.

A with the order of merit as obtaining in the select
list at the time of his appointment.
(d) Seniority ofdirect recruits vis-a-vis promoted
officers shall be determined with reference to the
dates on which his appointments actually are
8 made:
Provided, however, when a direct recruit and a
. promoted officer are appointed on the same date,
the promoted officer shall rank senior to the direct
recruit."
c 14. Resultantly, appointments made prior to 2004 were governed
by the Rules as applicable at the relevant time. As per that dispensation,
the direct recruits quota was 33% of the total posts. That was obviously
in excess of25% now specified in the amended Rules (as amended on
20.08.2004 pursuant to the decision of this Court). Notably, the State of
Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court
D in which it has been stated that no vacancy against 25%quota for direct .
recruitment existed in the State of Jharkhand at that time. This affidavit
~as filed on 26'h August 2008 after the amended Rules were notified
and came into force w.e.f. 20•h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling
up of34 posts ofAdditional District Judge through Limited Competitive
E Examination from amongst the members of Jharkhand Subordinate Judges
having more than 5 years of experience and 18 posts from merit-cum-
seniority basis amongst the Civil Judge (Senior Division), was issued in
2008 on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit
quota was available. That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit
filed by the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
F committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about
the vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004 - before recording
a finding against the High Court and the State Government and to reject
their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruit was available
as on 30.04.2008.
G 15. Indeed, the High Court in the impugned judgment has adverted
to the decision of this Court in All India Judf(es' Association & Ors.
Vs Union of/11dia & Ors. 1 which has enunciated the principle of roster
and the ratio to be followed for the post of Additional District Judge.
Indisputably, J?Ursuant to the decision of this Court the Rules were
H 1
(2002) 4 sec 247
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 73
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

amended, which came into effect from 20•h August 2004. In paragraph A
27 to 29 of the said decision, this Court has considered the question
regarding the method of recruitment to the postin the cadre of Higher
.Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. The
same reads thus:
"27. Another question which falls for consideration is the B
method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher
Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District
Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for
recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by
promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate
Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The subordinate c
iudiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial
system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation,
that it should beco111e as strong as possible. The weight on
the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate
;udiciary. While we have accepted the reco111mendation of D
the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in
the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary, it is at the same
time necessary that the judicial officers, hard-working as
they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they
keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest
pronounce111ents, and it is for this reason that the Shetty E
Commission has recom111ended the establishment of a Judicial
· Academy, which is ve1y necessary. At the sa111e time, we are
of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard,
objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher
Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District F
Judges ..While we agree with the Shelly Commission that the
recruitment to the Higher Judicidl Service i.e. the District
Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per
cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive
examination, both written ai1d viva voce, we are of the
opinion that there should be an objective method of testing G
the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for
promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there
should also be an incentive amongst the relutively junior
and other officers to improve and to compete with each other
so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2016l 11 S.C.R.

A expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial
Service will further improve. In order to achieve this. while
.the ratio of 75 per cent appointment bv promotion and 25
per cent bv direct recruitme11f to the Higher Judicial Service
is maintained. we are. however, of the opinion that there
should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion
B
is concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher
Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of
principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the High
Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain
and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and
c to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge
of case-law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the
service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of
merit through the limited departmental competitive
<!2SIJl11ination for which the qualifving service as a Civil Judge
(Senior Division) should be not less than five years. The
D
High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard.
28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct
that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre
of District Judf?es will be:
(l)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil
E Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-
cum-seniority and passing a suitability test;
(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit
through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges
(Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying
F service; and
(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct
recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis
of the written and viva voce test conducted by re5pective
High Courts.
G (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High
Courts as early as possible.
29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant
discontentment amongst the members of the Higher Judicial
Service in regard to their seniority in service. For over three
H
decades a large number of-cases have been instituted in
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 75
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] .

order to decide the relative seniority from the officers A
recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotees
and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there
will, in a way, be three ways of recruitment to the Higher
Judicial Service. The quota for promotion which we have
prescribed is 50 per cent by following the principle "merit-
B
cum-seniority ''. 25 per cent strictly on merit by limited
departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by
direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least
amount of litigation in the country, where quota system in
recruitment exists. insofar as seniority is concerned. is where
a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the c
rules of the Central Government, a 40-point roster which
has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if eve1; there
has been a litigation amongst the members of the service
after their recruitment as per the quotas, the seniority is fixed
D
by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a
person is recruited. When roster system is followed, there is
no question of any dispute arising. The 40-point roster has
been considered and approved by this Court in R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab1. One of the methods of
avoiding any litigation and bringing about certainty in this E
regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in
relation to the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the
basis of which the 40-point roster works. We direct the High
Courts to suitably amend and promulgate seniority rules on
the basis of the roster principle as approved by this Court in
R.K. Sabharwal easel as early as possible. We hope that as
F
a result thereof there would be no further dispute in the
fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this ~ystem can only
apply prospectively except where under the relevant rules
seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and
rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the G
members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be protected
but the roster has ·to be evolved for the future. Appropriate
rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and
approved by the States, wherever necessmy by 31-3-2003."
(emphasis supplied)
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20161 11 S.C.R.

A 16. Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct
recruitment was available as on 30'" April, 2008, no fault can be found
with the selection process commenced by the High Court for appointment
in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service by promotion on the
basis of merit through Limited Competitive Examination. The High Court
in the. impugned judgment has glossed over the effect of filling up the
B
vacancies in the ratio of25:25, which inevitably will exceed the quota of
posts for direct recruits as on 30.04.2008. That would disturb the roster
point and is impermissible in terms of Rule 8 as amended. The notification
dated 20.08.2004 amending Rule 5 and 8 reads thus:
''Government of Jharkhand
c Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha
NOTIFICATION
Ranchi Date 20. 08.2004
No. 6/Estab Jud 61012001 Perso. 4544/after repealing·
D existing Rule 5 7 8 (d) of Jharkhand Superior Judicial
Services (recruitment, Appointment and conditions of
Services) Rules 2001 of Departmental Notification No. 1246
datea 'QR.05.2001, Rule 5 and 8(d) are substituted as
follows:- ·
E Rule 5: Of the total post in the cadre of service.
(i)50% shall be filled by promotion from amongst the Sub
Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing a
suitability test as may from time to time be prescribed by the
High Court.
F (ii) 25% shall be fllled in by promotion (by way of selection)
strictly on the basis of merit through a limited competitive
examination of Sub Judges having not less than 5 years
service and also having due regard to his service record in
the past.
(iii) 25% shall be filled in by direct recruitment from the Bar
G
on the basis of test and viva-voce conducted by the High
Court.
8(d) The following roster shall be maintained after
appointment/promotion to fix the seniority of the direct .
recruits vis-a-vis proniote. officer. . The roster shall be as
H follows for every unit of JOO posts.
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 77
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.]

(i) For promote officers ji-om the service- A
1,2,5,6,9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18,21,22,25,26,29,30,33,34,37,38,41,42,45,
46,49,50,53,54,57,58,61,62,65,66,69,70, 73,74, 77,78,81,82,85,86,
89,90,93,94,97,98.
(ii) For promote officers form the limited competitive examination
of Sub Judge, B
3, 7,1J.J5, 19,23,27,31,35,39,43,47,51,55,63,67, 71, 75, 79,83,87,91,95,99.
(iii) For direct recruits-
4,8, 12, 16,20,24,28,32.36,40,44,48,52,56,60, 64,68, 72, 76,80,88,92,96, JOO.

By order of Governor C
(Shri Nitya Shankar Mukhopaddya)
Deputy Secretary of State
No. 6/Estab Jud 61012001 Perso. 4544/afler Ranchi Date
20.08.2004
Copy to- Superintendent, Government press, Doranda D
Ranchi, with request that be published in next edition of
Jharkhand official Gazette.
Deputy Secretary of Govt, "
I 7. The position as it stood as on 30'11 April 2008, is stated in
E
paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by the High Court dated 30'11 March,
2016, which reads thus:
"That it is stated that as on 30.04.2008, the sanctioned strength of
the Jharkhand Superior Juqicial Service was 145 and working
strength was 93, which is shown herein below:-
F

By Promotion from Promotion (By way By direct recruitment
Sub-Judges on the basis of selection) through from Bar (25%)
of merit-cum-seniority limited competitive
(50%) Examination (25%)
Sanctioned S a·ength - 145 G
73 36 36
Working strength= 93
55 00 38
Vacancies= 52
18 36-2=34 02 (surplus)
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS rzoI6] I I S.C.R.

A 18. Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota of
direct recruit as on 30'h August 2008, the writ petitioners (respondents 4
to 11 in the leading appeal), who could paiticipate in the selection process
for direct recruit alone and not by way of promotion through Limited
Competitive Examination, had no locus to challenge the selection process
of2008.
B
19. The High Court has overlooked the distinction between "post"
and "vacancy". If the requisite posts were already exhausted by the
direct recruits against the earmarked quota for direct recruitment, merely
because some vacancies occur, it would not be open to the aspiring
candidates against the direct recruit quota to challenge the selection
c process commenced for the in service judicial officers by promotion
through Limited Competitive Examination. The cadre strength is always
measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. The right to be
considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in
the given cadre. The percentage of quota has to be worked out in relation
D to number of posts which form the cadre and has no relevance to the
vacancy that would occur. This aspect has been glossed over by the
High Court in the impugned judgment. Suffice it to observe that as no
post for direct recruits existed as on 301hApril, 2008, the challenge to the
selection process to fill up the vacancy by promotion through Limited
Competitive Examination, at the instance of aspiring candidates by direct
E recruitment cannot be countenanced. The Writ Petition filed by such
aspiring candidates (WP(S) No. 4159/2008), therefore, ought to have
been dismissed by the High Court.
20. Having said this, it must follow that the selection process of
2008 which has been completed pursuant to the liberty given by this
F Court by way of interim order is proper and has become final. On this
finding, the challenge in the companion Writ Petitions to the selection
process commenced for the year 2010 does not merit interference. In
that, the vacancy position as on the date of the notification (i.e. 411t
November, 2010), for commencing selection process in 2010, were only
G upto 8 vacancies for appointment by direct recruitment from the Bar.
None of the writ petitioners before this Cou1t claim to be within the first
8 merit list candidates. The petitioners were placed at serial No.9
onwards. The first 8 candidates having been appointed, the selection
process for 2010 would get exhausted and considered as complete.
Merely because the names of the writ petitioners appear in the selection
H
SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 79
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

list, they do not acquire any indefeasible right in getting appointed. The A
vacancies have to be filled up in conformity \Vith the extant Regulations.
The selection process in which the writ petitioners participated, was
commenced on the basis of the stated notification for 8 notified vacancies
and appointments have been made of the meritorious candidates. That
selection process must be treated as having come to an end. The fact
8
that the notifications for subsequent selection process (commenced after
2010), issued by the High Court notifying different or higher number of
posts for direc;t recruitment, can be of no avail to the selection process
of20 I 0. That changed position is ascribable to subsequent period on the
basis of availability of posts for direct recruits. Not for selection process
of 2010. Similarly, the fact that one candidate amongst the appointed c
eight candidates after due selection subsequently resigned, no right can
accrue to the Writ Petitioner(s) on completion of the selection process
of20 I 0. Reliance placed on Rule 21 which requires preparation of select
list and to notify the same or to remain valid for one year from the date
of being notified, is also inapposite. That is not a Rule mandating
D
preparation ofa wait list of the selected candidates. No express provision
for retaining the select list as wait Iist for one year has been brought to
our notice. On the other hand, the effect of Rule 22 is that once the
names of candidates from the notified select list are recommended to
the Government proportionate to the vacancies available for appointment;
and recommended candidates are so appointed or on expiry of one year E
from notifying the select list whichever is earlier, the select list would
become ineffective qua the subject selection process. For, that selection
process is concluded. None of the writ petitioners can, therefore,
succeed in getting the relief claimed by them.
,.
21. The decision in the case of Rak/ti Rlly & Ors. Vs. Hixfl F
Court ofDel/ti and Ors.1 will be of no avail to the writ petitioners and
wou Id instead support the view we have already taken. The writ petitioners
cannot be heard to claim relief on the basis of the subsequent selection
process commenced pursuant to the notification dated 22nd February
2013. The High Court was not expected to fill the vacancies over and
above the vacancies advertised for selection process of20 I 0. Moreover; G
since the writ petitioners have participated in the earlier selection process
of 2010 and not in the subsequent selection process conducted on the
basis of Notification dated 22"d February 2013 for the year 2012, they
cannot be given any relief.
2
r2010) 2 sec 637 H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 11 S.C.R.

A 22. Considering the above, the Civil Appeal must succeed and is .
allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Cou11 of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP(S) No.4159/2008 dated 29' 11 August 2008 is
set aside and consequently the WP(S) No.4159/2008 stands dismissed.
Even the three connected Writ Petitions bearing Nos.300/2013,27/2014
and 325/2014 deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed. Accompanying,
B
I.As are disposed of in the same tenns.
23. We order accordingly. No order as to costs.
Divya Pandey Mailers disposed of.