Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules 2017 Has No Retrospective Operation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, has no retrospective operation.The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed. After the introduction of the 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct...
The Supreme Court observed that Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, has no retrospective operation.
The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules, the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose observed. After the introduction of the 2017 Rules, seniority inter-se direct recruits and promotees shall be determined on the basis of Roster, the court added.
The court, however, observed that the delay to bring the seniority rule in accord with the directions given in All India Judges' Association case, is not justified.
In this case, the Petitioner was appointed as a District Judge (entry level) in the direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Services in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 27.05.2008. He preferred representations between 02.08.2010 and 31.05.2014 for determination of seniority on the basis of point roster, as per the directions of this Court in All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India. The representations preferred by him were rejected on 11.09.2019 on the ground that the 2017 Rules came into force with effect from 13.03.2018 and are prospective in operation.
Before the Apex Court, the petitioner contended that in All India Judges' Association (supra), the Supreme Court had directed the High Courts to amend the seniority Rule by including the roster system for determining the inter-se seniority of District Judges. The delay that occurred in the amendment of Rules cannot be detrimental to the interest of the directly recruited District Judges, and, thus their seniority has to be re-determined on the basis of roster by retrospective effect being given to the 2017 Rules, it was contended. On the other hand, the High Court submitted that the 2017 Rules are prospective and the representations preferred by the direct recruits for the benefit of roster system from a prior date were rejected by the Administrative Committee of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The bench observed that the delay in the decision taken by the High Court to bring the seniority rule in accord with the directions given by this Court in All India Judges' Association (supra) on the ground of pendency of SLP before this Court is not justified.
"However, the Petitioners are not entitled to the relief of the 2017 Rules being given retrospective effect. According to Rule 11 (1) of the 2017 Rules, the relative seniority of members of service working on the date of commencement of the Rules shall not be disturbed. The roster shall be prepared and maintained only after the commencement of operation of the Rules. The Petitioners cannot claim that their seniority has to be reworked on the basis of roster as directed by this Court in All India Judges' Association (supra) case.", the court said while dismissing the writ petition.
Case: Anand Kumar Tiwari vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh ; WPC 675 of 201Citation: LL 2021 SC 376Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha BoseCounsel: Sr. Adv Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv Ashok Kumar Sharma for petitioners, Sr. Adv Ravindra Shrivastava, Adv Puneet Jain for respondents
Click here to Read/Download Judgment