# 11 S.C.R. 58 SRIKANT ROY & ORS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS - **Citation:** [2016] 11 S.C.R. 58 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2016-11-16 - **Case number:** CivilAppealNo. 10874of2016 - **Bench:** T. S. Thakur, A. M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/11-s-c-r-58-srikant-roy-ors-v-state-of-jharkhand-ors-31174 - **Pages:** 23 ## Headnote Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service - Selection process - Selection for the posts of Additional District Judges - Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001 - rr. 5 and 8 - Bifurcation of posts as per roster system pursuant to amended rules - In terms whereof, 50% of the posts to be filled up by promotees on the basis of merit-cum-seniority - Remaining 50% posts to be bifurcated equally, i.e. 25% by way of selection through Limited Competitive Examination and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar - Selection process initiated in August 2008 for filling up posts of ADJs by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination - Challenge to - High Court held that since 50% of the posts were already filled up by promotees on merit-cum-seniority basis, the left over 50% vacancies should be filled by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination and by the direct recruits in equal proportion - 011 appeal, held: Amended Rules providing for the ratio to be maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became effective on 20'" August 2004 and had prospective application - In terms of the consistent stand of the State Government and the affidavit filed by High Court (Administrative Side), it is clear that the notification for filling up posts of ADJ by promotion issued in 2008 was on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available - High Court committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts as to vacant posts in relation to direct recruit quota - Distinction between "post" and "vacancy" overlooked by High Court - Once it is found that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruilment was available at the relevant time, private respondents who were eligible to participate in the selection process through direct recruitment alone and not by promotion, had 58 SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 59 no locus to challenge the 2008. selection process - Resultantly, 2008 A selection process held to be proper and final - Judiciary. Allowing the leading Civil Appeal and dismissing the three connected writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 When the amended Rules providing for tile ratio to be.maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became effective on 20 1h August 2004 and had prospective application, the factual position as obtained on 20'h August 2004 would become relevant. [Para 12] [70-G-H] 1.2 In view of Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed prior to the amendment of 20.08.2004 appointments made prior to 2004 were governed by the Rules as applicable at the relevant time. As per that dispensation, the direct recruit~ quota was 33% of the total posts. That was obviously in excess of 25% now specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 20.08.2004). Notably, the State of Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court stating that no vacancy against 25% quota for direct recruitment existed in the State of Jharkband at that time. This affidavit was filed on 261h August 2008 after the amended Rules were notified and came into force w.e.f. 201h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive Examination from amongst. the members of Jharkhand Subordinate Judges was issued in 2008 on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available. That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit filed by the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about the vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004, before recording a finding against the High Court and the State Government and to reject their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruit was available as on 30.04.2008. [Paras 13, 14) [71-A; 72C-F] 1.3 Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct recruitment was available as on ## Text _Characters 0–39,294 of 47,668. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39294 for what follows._ A B c D E F G H (2016] 11 S.C.R. 58 SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. (CivilAppealNo. 10874of2016) NOVEMBER 16, 2016 [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) Judicial Service - Higher Judicial Service - Selection process - Selection for the posts of Additional District Judges - Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2001 - rr. 5 and 8 - Bifurcation of posts as per roster system pursuant to amended rules - In terms whereof, 50% of the posts to be filled up by promotees on the basis of merit-cum-seniority - Remaining 50% posts to be bifurcated equally, i.e. 25% by way of selection through Limited Competitive Examination and 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar - Selection process initiated in August 2008 for filling up posts of ADJs by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination - Challenge to - High Court held that since 50% of the posts were already filled up by promotees on merit-cum-seniority basis, the left over 50% vacancies should be filled by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination and by the direct recruits in equal proportion - 011 appeal, held: Amended Rules providing for the ratio to be maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became effective on 20'" August 2004 and had prospective application - In terms of the consistent stand of the State Government and the affidavit filed by High Court (Administrative Side), it is clear that the notification for filling up posts of ADJ by promotion issued in 2008 was on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available - High Court committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts as to vacant posts in relation to direct recruit quota - Distinction between "post" and "vacancy" overlooked by High Court - Once it is found that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruilment was available at the relevant time, private respondents who were eligible to participate in the selection process through direct recruitment alone and not by promotion, had 58 SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 59 no locus to challenge the 2008. selection process - Resultantly, 2008 A selection process held to be proper and final - Judiciary. Allowing the leading Civil Appeal and dismissing the three connected writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 When the amended Rules providing for tile ratio to be.maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became effective on 20 1h August 2004 and had prospective application, the factual position as obtained on 20'h August 2004 would become relevant. [Para 12] [70-G-H] 1.2 In view of Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed prior to the amendment of 20.08.2004 appointments made prior to 2004 were governed by the Rules as applicable at the relevant time. As per that dispensation, the direct recruit~ quota was 33% of the total posts. That was obviously in excess of 25% now specified in the amended Rules (as amended on 20.08.2004). Notably, the State of Jharkhand had filed an affidavit in C.A.No.1867/2006 before this Court stating that no vacancy against 25% quota for direct recruitment existed in the State of Jharkband at that time. This affidavit was filed on 261h August 2008 after the amended Rules were notified and came into force w.e.f. 201h August 2004. Thus, notification for filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judge through Limited Competitive Examination from amongst. the members of Jharkhand Subordinate Judges was issued in 2008 on the basis that no vacancy against the posts of direct recruit quota was available. That stand is reiterated even now in the affidavit filed by the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment committed manifest error in not considering these relevant facts about the vacant posts for direct recruits as on 20.08.2004, before recording a finding against the High Court and the State Government and to reject their stand that no vacancy against the quota of direct recruit was available as on 30.04.2008. [Paras 13, 14) [71-A; 72C-F] 1.3 Once it is found that no post against the quota of direct recruitment was available as on 30'h April, 2008, no fault can be found with the selection process commenced by the High Court for appointment in the cadre of Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service by promotion on the basis of merit through Limited B c D E F G H 60 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2016l 11 S.C.R. Competitive Examination. The High Court in the impugned judgment glossed over the effect of filling up the vacancies in the ratio of 25:25, which inevitably would exceed the quota of posts for direct recruits as on 30.04.2008. That would disturb the roster point and was impermissible in terms of Rule 8 as amended. [Para 16] [76-A-B] 1.4 Considering the fact that no vacancy existed in the quota of direct recruit as on 30'h August 2008, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 in the leading appeal), who could participate in the selection process for direct recruit alone and not by way of promotion through Limited Competitive Examination, had no locus to challenge the selection process of 2008. [Para 18] [78A-B] 2. The High Court overlooked the distinction between "post" and "vacancy". If the requisite posts were already exhausted by the direct recruits against the earmarked quota for direct recruitment, merely because some vacancies occur, it would not be open to the aspiring candidates against the direct recruit quota to challenge the selection process commenced for the in service judicial officers by promotion through Limited Competitive Examination. [Para 19] [78-B-C] All India Judges 'Association & Ors. l~ Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 (2) SCR 712; Rakhi Ray & Ors. v. High Court of Delhi and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 637 : 2010 (2) SCR 239 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2002 (2) SCR 712 referred to Para 15 2010 (2) SCR 239 referred to Para 21 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10874 of2016. G From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2008 of the High Com1 of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPS No. 4159 of 2008 WITH W. P. (C) No. 300 of2013 W. P. (C) Nos. 27 and 325 of 2014. 1-1 Nidhesh Gupta, Amrendra Sharan, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Singh, Sr. Advs. Raunak Singh, Amit Kumar, Shaurya, Puneet Varshney, Rajeev Sharma, Sum it Kumar, Dr. Kai lash Chand, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, · Krishnanand Pandeya, Himanshu Shekhar, Jamnesh Kumar, Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, Jayesh Gaurav, Anil K. Jha, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Shiv Ram Sharma, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. Leave granted. 2. This common judgment will dispose all the four petitions. 3. The leading Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petiti{)n (Civil) No.9883/2009, is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(S) No.4159/ 2008 dated 291h August 2008. By the said Writ Petition, the writ petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) had challenged the selection process for filling up of 34 posts of Additional District Judges through Limited Competitive Examination scheduled on 31" August 2008; and also 18 posts of Additional District Judges from the promotee officers on the basis ofmerit-cum-seniority scheduled on 23'd August 2008. The writ . petitioners (respondents 4 to 11 herein) were appointed purely against temporary and ex-cadre posts on ad-hoc basis, as Presiding Officer, Fast Track Courts in the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year .2002. According to the said writ petitioners, the impugned selection process was improper and not in conformity with the mandate of the amended Rules requiring ratio of 50:25:25 - by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing of a suitability test; by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the basis ofmeritthrough a Limited Competitive Examination of Sub-Judges having not less than 5 years service; and by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of written test and viva-voce conducted by the High Court, respectively. The said writ petitioners asserted that if the impugned selection process was allowed to be taken forward, it would be in breach of the relevant Recruitment Rules and also infringe the mandate of adhering to the roster as per Rule 8 of the amended Rules. The main contention of the said writ petitioners was that the High Court was erroneously linking the ratio of posts to fill up the vacancies by giving retrospective effect to the amended Rules, which has come into force w.e.f. 20'h August 2004. The challenge before the High Court in the writ 61 A B c D E F G H 62 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS r20l6] l l S.C.R. petition, as has been noted in the opening para l of the impugned judgment was limited to the quota assigned for the Limited Competitive Examination from amongst the (Subordinate Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division) scheduled to be held on 31" August 2008. The High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment has noted that the challenge is only to the extent of 42 posts of Additional District Judges which had to be filled up by following the roster system in the ratio of25:25. Those posts were required to be bifurcated equally between the promotees from the rank of Subordinate Judges by conducting Limited Competitive Examination and direct recruits from the Bar in the ratio of 25:25. In paragraph I 0 onwards of the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the plea of the said writ petitioners and issued directions to the High Court to fill up the vacancies, as directed. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads thus: "I 0. Having heard the counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the explanation in regard to the bifurcation of the posts as per roster syste111 to be followed in pursuance to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, which was a111ended in view of the directions of the Supre111e Court, we are of the view that 50% of the posts having already been filled up by the pro111otes on the basis of the merit-cu111seniority due to which 41 posts were filled up, the left over 42 posts have to be bifurcated into 25% and 25% 111eaning thereby 21 posts will have to be assigned to be filled up by promotion fro111 the Subordinate Judges/Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of Limited Co111petitive Examination and left over 21 posts which constitute 25% of the available posts will have to be filled up by the direct recruits as that is the clear mandate of the Supreme Court in the case referred to herei11before in pursuance to which the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, was also amended in 2001 and became effective in 2004. In fact, the petitioners have informed this Court that the respondents have not on(v invited /he applications for all the 42 posts to be filled up by the Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination, but even the posts that might be available i11 the year 2009 have also been included in the advertisement, which is clearly not in consonance with the direction of the Supreme Court and is also contrary to the Jharkhand SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] Superior JudiCial Service Rules, 2001. 11. Hence, this court is left which no option, than to set aside the examination process, which is scheduled to be held on 31. 08. 2008 and further direct the respondents to bifurcate the left over posts into the ratio of half and half, i.e. 25% and 25% equally and thereafter isst(ed a fresh advertisement for filling up 21 posts by the Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination and the rest 21 posts will have to be filled up by direct recruits for which exercise will have to be undertaken in future by the respondents. 12. As no other point has been pressed in this writ petition and the only dispute that has been raised is in record to bifurcation of posts contrary to the roster principle, referred herein before, and the same having been found to be correct, the notification issued on the internet for filling up the posts of Additional District Judges is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the process of examination to be held on 31.8.2008 is also set aside. The writ petition, accordingly, is allowed, but without any order as to costs. " 4. The appellants, who were working as Subordinate Judges at the relevant time and were otherwise eligible to appear in the Limited Competitive Examination for filling up the notified vacancies by way of promotion, have approached this Court to question the aforesaid decision. 5. The cognate Writ Petitions involve overlapping issues. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions, however, participated in the selection process -Jf20 I 0 commenced on the basis of an advertisement No. I /20 I 0 for the post of Additional District Judge from the Bar. These petitioners did not succeed in getting appointed, as the first 8 candidates in the merit list exhausted the 8 vacancies notified for the relevant period. The said writ petitioners were, however, placed at serial No.9 onwards in the merit list. According to these petitioners, some more posts were available for direct recruits from the Bar. That contention, essentially, is dependent on the outcome of Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9883/2009 wherein the selection process of2008 is the subject matter. According to these writ petitioners, the High Court had failed to notify the correct number of vacancies for 20 I 0. The correct number of vacancies in 20 I 0 to be tilled up by direct recruitment ought to be 13. 63 A B c D E F G H 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · r2o 16111 S.C.R. A Indeed, the writ petitioners have made their own assumption to arrive at this number of vacancies, as is spelt out from the averments in the Writ Petition. 6. The Registrar General of the High Court has filed reply affidavits. The stand of the High Court (Administration Side) was that 8 no vacancy for direct recruit from the Bar existed as on 20.04.2008. It is stated that in the year 2008, the actual vacancy as on 301h April, 2008 and anticipated vacancy till 31" March 2009 were notified on the official Website of the High Cou1t. The said Notification reads thus: c D Actual Vacancy as on 30.04.2008 Anticipated Vacancy till 31.03.2009 By Promotion Promotion (by way By promotion from from Sub-Judges of Selection) Sub-Judges on on basis of metitthrough limited basis of merit-cumcum-seniority competitive seniotity examination 18 34 11 Note: In the event of issuance of notification by the State Governmentregarding induction of I 0 Adhoc A.D.Js. of the Fast Track Courts in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service on regular basis, in view of the recommendation of the Court made vi de E letter Nos.6949/ Apptt. Dated 3rd November 2007 and 2819/ Apptt. Dated 11.04.2008, the actual vacancies as on 30.04.2009 in the Promotee Quota shall be reduced to 08." After initiation of the impugned selection process for 2008, a Writ Petition No.4159/2008 was filed in the High Court in which directions were issued F to the High Court to fill up 21 vacancies out of 42 vacancies by promotion of Subordinate Judges on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination and the rest of 21 vacancies by direct recruitment. The matter was, therefore, referred to the selection committee. In the meantime, however, the Judicial Officers challenged the decision of the High Court by way of present S.LP. (Civil) No. 9883/2009 in which interim stay of operation G of the directions issued by the High Comt was granted on 91h April,· 2009. The said interim order was later modified on 241h September 20 I 0, in the following terms: ·''List alongwith the batch·of T.C.22 of :!nOJ. Since the matter has been pending at the stage of H advertisement of 2008, we modify the order passed by the .. SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] previous Bench dated 9.4.2009 by directing the process, . pursuant to the advertisement of 2008, to continue pending the hearing and final disposal of this Special Leave Petition. However, on completion of the exercise, vacancies will not be .filled till further orders. " Pursuant to the modification of the interim order, the High Court completed the selection process of filling up of the notified vacancies of2008 by way of promotion. On a further application filed, this Court on S•h August 2011 permitted the High Court to make appointments concerning the said selection process of2008. The said order reads thus: "In modification of our order dated 24'" September 2010, the High Court is free to make appointments subject to the result of the special leave petition. The Interlocutory Application is, accordingly, allowed. " Pursuant to the liberty given by this Court, the High Court submitted recommendations to the State Government for promotion of3 I Officers of Sub-Judge Cadre as per the advertisement issued in 2008 to fill up the vacancies in terms of Rule 4(b) and 4(c). The High Court submitted another recommendation to the State Government for promotion of 17 more Officers. 7. It is then asserted by the High Court that when the selection process of2008 was commenced and completed, there was no vacancy for direct recruit quota. The affidavit also refers to the fact that 8 vacancies of direct quota were notified in the year 20 I 0 vi de High Court memorandum dated 4'h November 2010 for the relevant period, which reads thus: "Actual vacancies in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service accrued during the period from 18.07.2008 till date By Promotion Promotion (by By direct Total Vacancies from Sub-Judges way of Selection) recruitment on basis of meritthrough limited from Bar cum-seniority ·competitive Examination 28 08 or 09 07 or08 44 Memo 7671/Apptt. Dated Ranchi the 4'" November, 2010 Copy forwarded to Scientist (D), N.I.C., Jharkhand High Court Ranchi. 65 A B c D E F G H 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] II S.C.R. A He is requested to put the aforesaid vacancies in the official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. " The High Cou11 with a view to fill up those vacancies, commenced the process vide advertisement No.O I /20 I 0. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions appeared B in the preliminary examination held oil 291h September 2011 and the main examination held on 271h November 2011 along with other candidates. Only 32 candidates could qualify the main examination, who were called for viva-voce held on 3rd February 2012. Out of those candidates, only 15 candidates including the writ petitioners in the connected writ petitions successfully qualified all the three rounds. However, as per the merit C wise rank of successful candidates, the names of the said writ petitioners were placed at lower position. Thus, the first 8 meritorious candidates were recommended for appoi'ntment against the vacant posts to be filled by the process of direct recruitment. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the appointment of the candidates made against the selection process 0 for 2008, the candidates were made aware that their appointment was subject to the final decision of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9883/2009. E F G H 8. It is asserted by the High Cout1 that the writ petitioners in connected writ petitions, who participated in the subsequent selection process cannot get any advantage qua the selection process of 2008. For, they participated in the selection process commenced on the basis of advertisement No. I of20 I 0. Similarly, they cannot claim any relief in respect of fresh vacancy which was notified in the year 2012, vide Notification dated 22"d March, 2012. That notification reads thus: ''JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. RANCHI NOTIFICATION No. 102/A. The Vacancies of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service including the future vacancies till 31.12.2012 are hereby notified in the following manner:- By promotion Promotion (by way By direct recruitment from Civil Judge of selection) from Bar (25%)- (Sr. Division) on through limited under Rule 4(a) of the basis of competitive Rules, 2001 merit-cumExamination seniority (65% )- (I 0%)-under Rule under Rule 4(b) 4(c) of Rules, 2001 of Rules, 2001 57+7=64 Nil 5 (+8*) SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 67 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid 69 A notified vacancies will also be subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 988312009. Also, all the earlier advertised vacancies are hereby recalled a11d restructured in the above manner. B "'Note:- The recommendation fo1· fllli11g up of 08 vacancies of Direct Recruit Quota has already been made to the State Government for issuance of necessary Notification vide Letter No. 1959/Apptt. Dated 10.02.2012 and thus the vacancy under this Quota till 31.12.2012 remains 05(/ive). c Dated: 22'"1 March, 2012 By Order, Registrar General" The vacancy po~ition as on 31" December 2012 was revised and duly notified vide Notification dated 191h September 2012, which reads D thus: "JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI NOTIFICATION No.275/A The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior E Judicial Service till 31.12.2012 as notified vide Notification No.102/A dated 22"J March 2012 is revised and notified in the following manner:- By promotion from Promotion (by way of By direct recruitment Civil Judge selection) through from Bar (25%)- under (Sr.Division) on the limited competitive Rule 4(a) of rules 200 I basis of merit-cumexamination (10%)- seniority ( 65%) - under Rule 4(c) of under Rule 4 (b) of rules, 2001 rules, 2001 68* Nil 08 It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid notified vacancies will subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 988312009. F G H 68 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 11 S.C.R. Note: In the event of the issuance of Notification by the State Govt. regarding Promotion of 28 Officers of the rank of Civil Judge (Sr.Division) in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service in view of recommendation of the Court as made vide letter no.9593/Apptt. Dated 17'1' July 2012, the actual vacancy as on 31.12.2012 under this quota [i.e. under Rule 4(b)} shall be reduced to 40. Dated: 19'" September. 2012" By Order SdlRegistrar General 9. It is stated that the vacancy position as on 31" December 2012 was notified on the basis of the sanctioned strength of 174 at the relevant time. That sanctioned strength was later on increased to 191 on creation of 17 permanent posts of Superior Officers @ 10% of existing strength. In paragraph 20 of the reply affidavit, the vacancy position as calculated on the basis of amended Rules (as amended on 14'h December 2011) has been mentioned as follows: Sanctioned strength By pro1mtion from PronDtion (by way By direct Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) of selection through recruitment on the basis of ireritlimited competitive from Bar cum-seniority examination (65%)-Rule 4(b) (10%)-Rule 4(Q (25%)-Rule 4(a) Sanctioned 124 19 48 Strength-19 I Present worldng 68 20(-1 *) 36 strength-124 - Present v.icancies 56-1*=55 Nil 12 (*excess adjusted) 10. It is then stated that pursuant to the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal N os.6647-6649/2012 (filed by officers posted as Additional G District Judges, Fast Track Courts), vide letter dated 20' 11 February2013 the State Government was requested to create 13 permanent posts to accommodate the 22 appellants in the said Civil Appeals on condition that in the event ofnon qualifying ofany of the appellants in the selection process to be conducted in terms of the direction given by this Court in the said decision, the equal number of such created posts of District H Judge will be abolished. After due consideration, the vacancy position of SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 69 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service was notified vide Notification A dated 22"d February 2013 which reads thus: "HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI NOTIFICATION No.451A. The Vacancies position of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service as notified earlier vide Notification No.2751A dated 19'1' B September, 2012 is hereby recalled and further revised till date in the following manner:- By promotion from Promotion (by way By direct recruitment Civil Judge (Sr. of selection) from Bar(25%)-under Division)on the basis through limited Rule 4(a)ofrules, 2001 of merit-cum-seniority competitive (65%)-under Rule 4(b) examination ofrules,200 I (10%)-under Rule 4(c)ofRules, 2001 55 Nil 22*+03"=25 It is made clear that appointment over the aforesaid notified vacancies will be subject to final decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.98831 2009. Note:- 1 * 22 Vacancies for the appellants of Civil Appeal Nos.6647,6648 & 6649 of 2012. 2. "03 Vacancies for Direct Recruitment from Bar. 3. Taking into account the 13 posts likely to be createdfrom the end of the State Government. c D E By Order Sdl-A.K.Choudhnary _ F Registrar General !IC Dated: 22"d February, 2013 Memo No.16441Apptt.Dated Ranchi, the 22"" February, 2013 Copy forwarded to the lie NJC Cell, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi for uploading the above notification in the official website of the Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi immediately. Sdl-22. 02.2013 Registrar General lie" G H 70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 11 S.C.R. A 11. It is also pointed out that the Standing Committee of the High B c D E F Court vi de minutes dated 18' 11 February 2014 assessed the vacancy position as on 201h February 2014 as under: Sanctioned Working Vacancy as SI. Strengd1 Strength as on No Oil 20.02.2014 20.022014 1 By promotion from Civil 134 60 74• Judge 9Sr.Division) on the (74-4*)=70 basis of merit-cum-seniority (65%)-under Rule 4(b) of rules. 2001 2 Promotion( by way of 21 17 4 selection)through limited c ompe ti ti ve e xamina ti on( I 0% )-under Rule 4( c) of Rules, 2001 3 By direct recruitment from 51 55 Excess 4* Bar (25%)-under Rule 4(a) (excess of Rules,200 I may be adiusted) In other affidavits filed on behalf of the High Court by the Registrar General, the above factual position has been reiterated. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The leading appeal concerns the selection process commenced in 2008. The High Court has set aside the said selection process on the finding that 50% of the posts have already been filled up by the promotees on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and as a result of which the left over 42 vacancies should be filled by promotion from the subordinate Judge/ Civil Judge (Senior Division) on the basis of Limited Competitive G Examination and by the direct recruits. in equal proportion. There can be no difficulty in accepting the argument that the amended Rules providing for the ratio to be maintained between the promotees and direct recruits became effective on 201h August 2004 and had prospective application. Thus, the factual position as obtained on 2om August 2004 would become relevant. H SRIKANT ROY & ORS. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 71 [A. M. KHANWJLKAR, J.] 13. Rules 4 and 5 read with Rule 8, as it existed prior to the A amendment of20.08.2004 read thus: Rule -4: - Appointment to tile service- Appointment to the service, which shall in the first instance 01·dinarily be to the post of additional district judge, shall be made by the governor, in consultation with 8 High Court:- (a) By direct recruitment of persons as recommended by the High Court for such appointment under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India; and C (b) By promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis from amongst the officers belonging to the Jharkhand service provided that where the merit of the officers is equal in all respects, seniority shall prevail and be given weightage. · o Rule-5: Of tile total posts i11 tile cadre of tile service 67% sliall be filled in by promotion am/ 33% by