DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN OTHERS

Ad-hoc appointments to man Fast Track Courts do not confer seniority from the ad-hoc date; seniority of judicial officers promoted substantively must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment; the 2011 selection process was not a continuation of the 2010 process and therefore the 47 officers substantively promoted on 21.04.2010 were rightly placed en-bloc senior to those appointed pursuant to the 2011 process; however inter se placement of candidates selected through LCE must be determined by their merit in the LCE and not by prior seniority in the feeder cadre.

Parties
Petitioners: Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others; Respondents: High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Writ petitions disposed: some petitions allowed in part and others dismissed
Legal Topics
Seniority, Promotion, Fast Track Courts, Limited Competitive Examination (lce), Recruitment, Roster/cyclic Order
Service Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Seniority Promotion Fast Track Courts Limited Competitive Examination (lce) Recruitment +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others

Petitioners

High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether judicial officers promoted on ad-hoc basis as Additional District and Sessions Judges to man Fast Track Courts and subsequently substantively appointed to the District Judge cadre are entitled to seniority from the date of initial ad-hoc promotion
  2. 2 Whether the selection process initiated by Notification dated 31.03.2011 is continuation of the process initiated under Notification dated 15.04.2010
  3. 3 Whether substantive promotions granted to 47 Judicial Officers on 21.04.2010 form part of the same selection process as appointments made pursuant to the Notification dated 31.03.2011 and whether those 47 officers can be placed en-bloc senior to candidates selected in the 2011 process without applying the Cyclic Order

Ratio Decidendi

Ad-hoc appointments to man Fast Track Courts do not confer seniority from the ad-hoc date; seniority of judicial officers promoted substantively must be reckoned from the date of substantive appointment; the 2011 selection process was not a continuation of the 2010 process and therefore the 47 officers substantively promoted on 21.04.2010 were rightly placed en-bloc senior to those appointed pursuant to the 2011 process; however inter se placement of candidates selected through LCE must be determined by their merit in the LCE and not by prior seniority in the feeder cadre.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions disposed: some petitions allowed in part and others dismissed

Orders

  • Writ Petition (Civil) No.498 of 2019 and Writ Petition Diary No.13252 of 2019 allowed insofar as inter se placement of candidates selected through LCE shall be based on merit in the examination rather than seniority in the erstwhile cadre
  • Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.936 of 2018 and 967 of 2018 dismissed (47 Judicial Officers placed en-bloc senior to candidates selected pursuant to Notification dated 31.03.2011 upheld)