DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS.

DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus DELHI HIGH COURT AND ORS.

Temporary posts created prior to amendment can validly be filled by direct recruitment as per amended rules since Supreme Court had ordered selection process as per draft rules and subsequent advertisement was issued only after amended rules were in force; Rules 7, 16, and 17 are not violative of Articles 14, 16, or 233 as they merely establish a quota and the manner of filling posts was consistent with constitutional requirements.

Parties
Petitioner: Delhi Judicial Services Association; Respondent: Delhi High Court
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (c) Nos. 1023 and 1643 of 1987 (original Jurisdiction; Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Promotion and Direct Recruitment, Validity of Service Rules, Articles 14, 16, 233 Constitution of India
Service Law Constitutional Law Promotion and Direct Recruitment Validity of Service Rules Articles 14, 16, 233 Constitution of India

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Delhi Judicial Services Association

Petitioner

Delhi High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (c) Nos. 1023 and 1643 of 1987 (original Jurisdiction; Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether temporary posts created prior to amendment must be filled up under pre-amended rules by promotion only
  2. 2 Validity of amended Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (Rules 7, 16, 17) vis-à-vis Articles 14, 16, and 233 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Temporary posts created prior to amendment can validly be filled by direct recruitment as per amended rules since Supreme Court had ordered selection process as per draft rules and subsequent advertisement was issued only after amended rules were in force; Rules 7, 16, and 17 are not violative of Articles 14, 16, or 233 as they merely establish a quota and the manner of filling posts was consistent with constitutional requirements.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Both writ petitions fail and are dismissed; advertisement and process of direct recruitment for 10 posts upheld; Rules 7, 16, 17 of amended rules not violative of Articles 14, 16, or 233; seniority and appointments to proceed as per amended rules.