Delhi High Court
Murari Gupta vs High Court Of Delhi Through Its ... on 4 April, 2014
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 4th April, 2014
+ W.P. (C) 2172/2014
MURARI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
versus
HIGH COURT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
GENERAL AND ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Standing
Counsel for DHC.
Ms. Vibha Mahajan, Advocate for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
SANJIV KHANNA J. (ORAL)
1. Respondents have filed status report.
2. In order to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to go
through the same, the matter was passed over and has been taken
up for hearing in the second round.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that no Delhi Higher Judicial
Services (DHJS) Examination for direct recruits were held in the
years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and this fact has not been noticed in the
Notification dated 29.12.2013. It is accordingly submitted that the
petitioner who had appeared in DHJS Examination for direct
recruits in 2009, has suffered because of inaction of the
Respondents in spite of the directions of the Supreme Court in
Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr. v. U.P. Public Service Commission
& Ors., JT 2007 (3) SC 352. Reliance is also placed on a decision
of the Jharkhand High Court dated 16.01.2014 in W.P.(S)
No.7526/2013 titled Bhola Nath Rajak & Ors. v. The State of
Jharkhand & Ors.
4. In order to ascertain correct factual position and noticing urgency
in the matter as examination under the Notification dated
29.12.2013 are scheduled to be held on 06.04.2014, by order dated
02.04.2014 the Respondents were asked to file status report
ascertaining and stating the factual position relating to vacancies
under direct recruitment quota in DHJS. Reference was made to
contention of the petitioner that sanctioned strength in DHJS was
increased by 03 posts vide letter dated 12.11.2010.
5. As per the status report, DHJS Examination for direct recruits was
held on 13.12.2009 for filling up nine existing and one anticipated
vacancy. Seven officers joined thereafter, but two vacancies of
Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be filled up for want of
suitable candidates.
6. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi had sanctioned three
and fifteen additional posts in DHJS on 12.11.2010 and 05.03.2011
respectively. In the meanwhile, the direct recruitment quota in
DHJS underwent change and was decreased from 35% to 25%
pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar
Sultan (supra) vide order dated 04.01.2007, in which it was
observed that in the cadre of District Judges, 25% of the
vacancies/posts should be filled up by direct recruitment from the
Bar; 25% by way of promotion through limited competitive
examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) not having less than
five years of qualifying service and 50% should be filled up by
promotion from the Judicial Service. The position underwent
modification when order dated 20.04.2010 was passed in All India
Judges Association case, wherein directions were issued to the
High Courts to amend the existing rules for appointment in the
Higher Judicial Service in the ratio of 65%, 10% and 25% by
promotion, limited departmental examination and direct
recruitment, respectively. In terms of the said directions, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi was requested to amend Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher
Judicial Services Rules w.e.f. 01.01.2011, which was amended by
Notification dated 22.12.2011. At that time, category wise
sanctioned and working strength in DHJS was as under:-
Particulars Total Seniority Direct Rectt. Quota Limited
Quota (25%) Deptt. Exam
(65%) Quota (10%)
Strength (Gen 43 + SC 8 + ST
4)
Strength (Gen 45 + SC 9 + ST
2)
7. It is clear from the aforesaid table that the numbers of direct
recruits in the DHJS were in excess of their quota of 25%.
8. In these circumstances and to ensure that 10% quota relating to
limited departmental examination in the DHJS should be filled up,
the matter was examined on the administrative side. It was decided
that officers from Delhi Judicial Service should get requisite
representation in the DHJS to the extent of 65%/75%.
Accordingly, the Examination cum Judicial Education and Training
Programme Committee in their meeting held on 30.08.2011
recommended that 22 existing vacancies be allotted to the category
of limited departmental examination quota and 11 vacancies should
be filled up from the promotion quota. Two vacancies of the
Scheduled Tribes category in the direct recruitment quota were
directed to be preserved. It was observed that the direct recruits in
the General Category already had excess of two posts and the
Scheduled Caste Category had excess of one post. The Committee
therefore recommended that excess representation of the direct
recruits, i.e., beyond 25% quota, necessitated that existing
vacancies be allocated to the category of limited departmental
examination and promotion quota to ensure and make up
representation of 65%/10% of the cadre strength. There would not
be new appointments of direct recruits for the time being. The
aforesaid recommendations were accepted by the Full Court on
08.11.2011.
9. Thereafter, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi sanctioned 05 (five) and 50
(fifty) posts in the DHJS on 09.10.2012 and 29.01.2013. Though,
five posts were sanctioned by Govt. of NCT of Delhi on
09.10.2012, no examination to DHJS conducted in the year 2012.
As noted above, the direct recruits in the DHJS were in excess of
one post i.e they exceeded their 25% quota at that time.
10. On sanction of 50 posts on 29.01.2013, the following position
emerged:-
S. Source Percentage Posts as Working Vacancy
No. per quota Strength Position
11. Distribution of 69 posts in the direct recruit quota of 25%, is as
under:-
S. Source Share of Posts Number of Number of
No. Posts filled Posts Vacant
12. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not think that the petitioner
can object and challenge the age criteria stipulated for filling up 14
vacancies in the DHJS. In the Notification issued on 29.12.2013,
the age requirement as stipulated is that the applicant should have
attained the age of 35 years but should not have attained the age of
45 years as on 01.01.2013. Cut off age i.e. 45 years as on
01.01.2013 is as per Rule 9(3), of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 1970 which stipulates as under:-
"9. The qualification for direct recruits shall be as
follows:
(1)...........
(2)..........
(3) Must have attained the age of 35 years and have
not attained the age of 45 years on the 1 st day of January
of the year in which the applications for appointment are
invited."
13. The date of birth of the petitioner is 24.04.1967. The petitioner
became 45 years of age on 25.04.2012.
14. The decision of the High Court of Jharkhand in Bhola Nath Rajak
& Ors. (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that in the present
case there were good ground and justification for not holding
examination for direct recruits for DHJS after the last examination
in the year 2009. There were no vacancies in the direct recruitment
quota, till sanction of 50 new posts on 29.01.2013.
15. As noticed above, there was change in the direct recruitment quota
in the DHJS which came down from 35% to 25% in terms of the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan
and Anr (supra) and All India Judges' Association (supra). As a
result of the said directions and the change in the recruitment rules,
the DHJS examination for direct recruits was not required to be
held. It could only be held in 2013, as vacancies arose in the said
25% direct recruitment quota upon sanction of 50 new posts.
16. In these circumstances, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. CMA. No.4522/2014 also stands disposed of.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 04, 2014
vk
