SC Dismisses Plea Challenging Reduction In Quota Reserved For Appointment To UP Higher Judicial Service Through Limited Competitive Exam

Supreme Court has declined to entertain the challenging the constitutional validity of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2014 to the extent that it has reduced the quota reserved for appointment to the U.P. Higher Judicial Service through limited competitive examination from 25% to 10%

A three-judge Bench of CJI Bobde, Justice Bopanna and Justice Ramasubramanian has allowed the petitioner to withdraw the plea and approach the High Court.

The plea argued that reduction in the quota set out for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (L.D.C.E) candidates and ensuing consequences have resulted in completely defeating the entire purpose and objective behind introducing this method for appointment to the U.P Higher Judiciary services.

During the hearing today, Sr Yatindra Singh appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the matter is an offshoot of the All India Judges case, and sought a notice to be issued to the other side.

"What this Court has done is reduce quota of limited departmental competitive exam from 25 to 10%. This has resulted into undoing of what was done in earlier order." Mr Singh submitted.

Bench asked if the petitioner is seeking a review of the Court's order.

Singh submitted " actually in terms of this Court's particular order, the High Court has amended the rules, so I'm challenging the rules. No reason has been mentioned as to why its been reduced. The result is that people who failed in competitive exams, by regular promotion they become higher than me

"Mr Yatin Singh, please go to the High Court" the Bench said.

"The High Court cannot do anything " Singh said.

"Why not? If the High Court says it cannot to anything we will consider it." the Bench said.

The present plea challenged the amendment rules to the extent of reduction in quota reserved for LDCE candidates from 25% to 10% which was done in terms of Supreme Court's order in All India Judges Case in 2010.

The present plea stated that the impugned U.P. H.J.S. (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2014, is submitted that the U.P. H.J.S. (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2014, suffer from the vice of manifestly arbitrariness and result in invidous discrimination against the L.D.C.E appointees. The said reduction in quota has grossly affected the inter se seniority and resulted in vast disparity amongst the three classes of persons

According to the petitioners, being the only opportunity to accord premium to merit among the subordinate judicial officers, right from the initial recruitment, reducing the L.D.C.E quota takes away the benefit in seniority which may eventually result in more competent and skilled judicial officers making it to the upper echelons of the judicial system.

The plea alleges that the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined by Articles 14 and 16 are grossly violated by the impugned Rules, 2014, since there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved for the reduction of L.D.C.E quota from 25% to 10%

The plea has submitted that the impugned rules discriminate against the class of persons seeking recruitment through in-cadre competitive examination as it does not provide any safeguard with respect to the preservation of vacancies which are to be filled up through in-cadre competitive examination.

The petitioners argued that the impugned Rules have treated unequals as equal since the L.D.C.E appointees stand on a qualitatively different pedestal than the promotees, but on account of the much sparser positioning of the L.D.C.E candidates in the roster, L.D.C.E appointees such as the petitioners have virtually come at par with their own batchmates of the feeder cadre for promotion and have gained negligibly in terms of seniority.

The Supreme Court in it's case of All India Judges' Association (3) v. Union of India, had observed that there was a further need to incentivise judicial officers apart from the existing two channels of appointment to the U.P. higher judicial services, including promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the Civil Judges , and direct recruitment from eligible and suitable candidates of the Bar.

According to the plea, the top Court introduced the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the first time, with an objective to strengthen the subordinate judiciary. While carving out the 25% quota for L.D.C.E, the Court had also made it clear that the manner to determine inter-se seniority between the three streams of recruitment to the H.J.S. would be to adopt a roster system.

The plea further stated that in terms of the Supreme Court's order , amendments were required to be made in relevant service rules, the same were carried out by different States in different manner. The State of UP through the U.P. H.J.S. (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2006 stated that in the eventuality of the 25% posts not being filled up through the L.D.C.E, the shortfall would be made up by promotion.

The plea stated that initially, the quota of 25% meant for being filled up through L.D.C.E, could not be fully utilised. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its amended rule 6 had already taken care of such an eventuality, as it stated that in case of there being any shortfall, the short fall of 25% reserved for such promotion will be made good by corresponding increase in the quota reserved for promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, when the issue was brought before the Top Court, it reduced the quota reserved for L.D.C.E appointees in the Higher Judicial Services from 25% to 10%.

According to the petitioners, while reducing the quota meant for L.D.C.E appointees from 25% to 10%, the Supreme Court had observed that the necessity for the same arose due to judicial vacancies in the Higher Judicial Service cadre remaining unfilled in some States. However, this was not the case in the State of U.P., on account of the existence of proviso to Rule 6(i)(b), and hence there was no need for reduction in the quota.

The petitioners argued that such reduction of quota, coupled with the revision in the roster, has resulted in a complete annihilation of the entire purpose of the departmental examination.

"Merit has been denuded of any weight in gaining seniority, and as the facts would reveal, both the objectives for introducing this examination in the first place, i.e. to grant 'quicker promotion' to eligible judicial officers and to ensure certain objective minimum standards for entry to the H.J.S., as enunciated by Supreme Court in All India Judges' Assn (3) v. Union of India, (2002) have been completely lost." the plea stated.

The present plea therefore sought direction for quashing the draft seniority list dated 23rd May 2018 issued by State of UP and to place the petitioners in the common seniority list as per the 1:4 roster existing prior to the impugned U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2014.

The preset plea was filed by Advocate Ram Naresh Yadav and drawn by Advocate Abhinav Kaushik.