'District Judges Entitled To Protection Of Seniority': Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes 2022 Seniority List

The Court referred to the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007 (2007 Rules) which prescribe the method of recruitment and other conditions of service of District Judges, Senior Civil Judges, and Junior Civil Judges. Rule 13(a) prescribes seniority of a person appointed to the category of District Judges by direct recruitment as well as by transfer that it shall be fixed as per 40 point roster prescribed in Schedule-A. Further, Rule 13(b) provides for seniority of persons appointed to the category of Civil Judges by direct recruitment of transfer which shall be fixed as per 20 point roster prescribed in Schedule-B of the Rules.

In light of these provisions, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,

“The date of notification for the appointment to the post of District Judge under 65% promotion quota as also under 10% accelerated recruitment by transfer quota being of the same date 31.03.2015, for the same recruitment year 2015, the process for both the quotas having been completed and the result declared on the same date 14.11.2015 and also the selection list by the High Court having been sent to the Government for issuance of the Government Order for their appointment being the same date 24.11.2015 and after issuance of the Government Order, though on different dates, the posting orders also having been issued on the same dated 19.02.2016, merely because in the case of the selectees/appointees under 65% promotion quota, the Government Order was issued on 20.01.2016 whereas in the case of the petitioners under 10% accelerated recruitment by transfer quota, the Government Order was issued later on, on 08.02.2016, the petitioners cannot be made junior to all the 65% quota appointees based on the date of the Government Order for appointment. That would be contrary to the legislative mandate under Rule 13(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules 2007”

The Court further noted that seniority of District Judges must be fixed in accordance with the 40-point roster system stipulated in Schedule-A, and not on the sole basis of date of appointment. The legislative intent required application of the roster system, and the same cannot be defeated by the State by making one category of persons junior to the other category. The Court thus held,

“As per Rule 13(a) of the Rules 2007, by which the seniority is to be determined of the District Judges of the persons appointed by direct recruitment as well as recruitment by transfer, it is to be fixed as per the roster points given in Schedule-A. When that is the legislative intent, we are of the view that either by its action or inaction, the State / Executive cannot act contrary to the legislative intent and take away the service benefits i.e., seniority position from one category or the other by issuing the appointment orders on different dates, making one category senior to the other.”

Facts:

The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Civil Judges, and later became Senior Civil Judges through promotion. After completing requisite years of service, they became eligible for appointment to the post of District Judge.

Subsequently, a notification was issued by the then Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on 31.03.2015, inviting applications for the 10% quota (Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer) and for 65% promotion quota (recruitment by transfer). The petitioners consequently applied, were considered, and their names were recommended by the High Court. However, the process under both the quotas were conducted simultaneously, with the notifications, result declaration and selected lists being forwarded to the Government on the same date (24.11.2015).

Thereafter, appointment orders were furnished, for 65% quota on 20.01.2016, and for 10% quota on 08.02.2016. Subsequently, both posting orders were issued on 19.02.2016, and the petitioners accordingly assumed office in February 2016.

In 2017, seniority lists were prepared by the common High Court, placing petitioners above several respondents and this list was given effect by making promotions to the post of Principal District Judges.

However, post bifurcation of the common High Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court initiated a fresh seniority exercise, where, in the final seniority list furnished in January 2022, and notified in March, 2022, the petitioners were placed below the respondents, on the grounds that the date of appointment determines seniority.

Through their writ petitions, petitioners argued that the 2017 seniority list was final and had been acted upon and the seniority list finalised in January 2022 illegally altered their placement in violation of Rule 13(a) of the 2007 Rules as seniority of District Judges must be fixed in line with the 40-point roster and not merely by the date of appointment.

On the other hand, the High Court argued that notification of seniority lists has been a long standing practice and since the 2017 seniority list was not notified, it cannot be said to have attained finality. Further, it was argued that seniority cannot be granted from a date prior to the person's actual appointment, and the petitioners were appointed on 08.02.2016, whereas the private respondents were appointed earlier on 20.01.2016.

Thus, the Court had to determine whether the 2022 seniority list was in contravention to Rule 13 of the 2007 and whether it adversely affected the petitioners' seniority.

Court's Findings

With respect to the appointment orders being published on different dates, the Court noted,

“…the Government issued appointment order in the case of 65% promotion quota earlier in point of time than the government order of appointment in the case of 10% accelerated recruitment by transfer quota. However, the posting orders were issued on the same date 19.02.2016. We are of the view that in view of the aforesaid factual situation, the Government was expected to issue the appointment orders on the same date.”

Additionally, the Court stated that the 2017 seniority list, which was prepared by the common High Court, was acted upon and promotions were made on the basis of the same. Thus, with respect to the submission of the Respondent that notifying the list is elemental for seniority list to attain finality, the Court held,

“… any Rule has not been shown to us that the seniority list to become effective is to be notified. Even if, to notify the seniority list, be the practice, once the High Court sent it for notification treating it as the final seniority list (i.e., dated 04.02.2017) and also acting upon that final seniority list, 17 promotions were made to the post of Principal District Judges, it cannot now be said that the said list did not attain finality merely because it was not notified by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The act to notify, in our view, is only a ministerial act and such ministerial act even if not carried, will not affect the final determination of the seniority, vide seniority list dated 04.02.2017 which had already been acted upon by the erstwhile High Court and the State of Andhra Pradesh before it's bifurcation and reorganization.”

Holding that the 2022 list wrongly altered the petitioner's seniority and that the 2017 list should not have been disturbed, the Court added,

“… the seniority position of the petitioners qua 65% promotion quota appointees on the post of District Judge under the notifications for recruitment of the same date, for the same recruitment year, could not be disturbed, by the impugned seniority list of 05.01.2022, violating Rule 13 (a) of the Rules 2007. Even if the seniority list of 04.02.2017 was not notified, preparation of the seniority list dated 05.01.2022 should have been as per Rule 13(a) of the Rules 2007.”

Allowing the writ petitions, the Court quashed the 2022 seniority list and ordered a fresh seniority list with respect to the petitioners under 10% Accelerated Recruitment by Transfer quota and the appointees under 65% quota to be prepared, applying the roster point under Rule 13(a) of the 2007 Rules, keeping in view the 2017.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos. 1675, 2707 and 2882 of 2022

Case Title: Guduri Rajani v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others

Click Here To Read/Download Order