High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/22297/2021dismissed

Neelam Arora v. The Punjab And Haryana High Court And Others

2025-03-20The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal11 pages

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 (O&M)

Reserved on: 10.12.2024

Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 Neelam Arora .....Petitioner versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents

Present :

Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate and Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Kalra, Advocate with Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent<High Court. ****

The petitioner who is serving as a Judicial Officer being member of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services has filed this petition assailing notification dated 15.12.2020 (Annexure P-8) showing inter-se seniority of officers promoted to the Punjab Superior Judicial Services in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 under the promotee quota as per Rule 7(3)(a) of the Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2007 (for short 'Rules of 2007'). The aforesaid challenge is based on the following grounds:- i) The impugned notification/seniority list (Annexure P-8) does not reflect the name of petitioner, despite petitioner having been

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 2 promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc/Fast Track Court) vide order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure P-3). ii) The impugned notification/seniority list (Annexure P-8) reflects the name of private respondents No. 2 to 16 despite the said private respondents having been appointed subsequent to the petitioner as Additional District Judge.

iii) The petitioner is denied the benefit of counting of services rendered as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc/FTC) from April-2009 to 31.03.2011 and from 09.06.2011 till regular promotion as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 02.06.2012, for the purpose of computing seniority in regular cadre of Punjab Superior (Judicial) Services. 2.

After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties at length, perusing the pleadings on record and the relevant citations relied upon by learned counsel, this Court for the purpose of clarity seeks to delineate the relevant events which took place in the present case in a chronological and tabular manner as follows: - DATES AND EVENTS 08.06.1992 Petitioner joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch), as Civil Judge (Junior Division).

11th Finance Commission recommends the scheme for constitution of Fast Track Courts (FTCs) for eliminating mounting arrears.

Recruitment Rules of Rules were framed for appointment of Judges in FTCs.

Petitioner was promoted as Chief Judicial

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 3 Magistrate.

06.04.2009 The petitioner is promoted as Additional District Judge (Adhoc/FTC) and posted at Fatehgarh Sahib. 04.02.2011 Advertisement is issued for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge under the quota as per Rule 7(3)(a) of Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules<2007.

"!# $%

"& '

( $ &% )"$ !* #+!& ,')!#) *!

FTC Scheme discontinued.

31.03.2011 The petitioner is repatriated from Additional District Judge (FTC) to his parent cadre as Chief Judicial Magistrate and posted at Tarn<Taran (Punjab). Fast Track Court Scheme revived.

09.06.2011 The petitioner is reappointed as Additional District Judge (FTC).

02.06.2012 The petitioner is promoted in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge under the quota prescribed in Rule 7(3)(a) of Rules of 2007.

06.10.2019 and The petitioner preferred representations to High 15.02.2020 Court against tentative seniority list dated 18.09.2020 for fixation of proper seniority in the cadre of Punjab Superior Judicial Services seeking counting of services rendered as ADJ (FTC) and placement above private respondents.

15.12.2020 The impugned notification/seniority list assigning

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 4 inter<se seniority of members of Punjab Superior Judicial Services promoted/appointed in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 under Rule 7 of Rules of 2007, also mentioning names of private respondents, is published.

"*+

!# # + ,%!

+ -"

Hence the present petition. 3.

Thus the entire submission of learned counsel for petitioner is founded upon counting of services rendered by petitioner as ADJ (FTC) from April<2009 to 31.03.2011 and from 09.06.2011 to 02.06.2012 for the purpose of computing seniority in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge to which petitioner was promoted on 02.06.2012 (Annexure P<7). 4.

The question as to whether, the services rendered as ADJ (Adhoc< FTC) while substantively holding post of Chief Judicial Magistrate, can be counted for assigning seniority in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge, is no more res<integra in view of the following decisions of the Apex Court, which have since long settled the said controversy in the following terms:< i)

" !

# $ %

#$ & "!

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 5 ii)

( ) *

"!$ + &

, "

"!$ ( % &

& "!$

$ -

.).)/0

% &

# "!$ !

& - &

"!$ *

& &

)

% $ & ) * &

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 6 iii) "# # " $ % " &&

!' %1

2 3/4/0/5 $$60/7/0// $$38 99:& & " !

# $

;

+ + "!

#$ %

$ & 1

;

+ "!

#$ !

2 34/00/6 $$7/00/ $$38 56: !

$ 1

2 3 / 4/0/ 5 $$ 60/ 7 /0/ / $$ 38 99: &

#$ !

2 34/00/6 $$ 7 /00/ $$ 38 56: & &

7 $$ 6/.& 9 9 < "!$

= &

& =

' iv) (( ) % *+ ,-% !

!! "

& ,

"!$ +

+ '

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 7 v) .,/ 0 / - % 1 2

':< >

& * ? ( % 4* ? ( % &/000@ $$/67 /000 $$38 066:% &

A# &

$ 1

2 3 ( % 41

2 3( % &/00/6 $$7/00/ $$ 38 56: B ; ; + C ; 4; ; + C ;& /0. . $$ 56@ 7 /0. $$38 96:B AA#C =

$ DC 4A A# C =

$ DC& /05 $$ 5657/05/ $$38 5E@: 1

2 3/( % 41

2 3/( % &/0/5 $$60/7 /0// $$38 99:> #

A# =

DC+ &

#$ >

' vi)

3 / #, -% '& - 4 !5 .

1& &

0 1

$ ; ; + C ; 4/0. . $$ 56@: D

/ & , ; ;

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 8 " !

# $ D ;

+ #

/ &

$ * ? %

0 1

2 &

. ; ; &

, ' vii) 6 73 + -6 "6 36, % !

&5!:< >

$ ? $ +

( % 4EE/

$$/9/7EE. $$38 5E7 EE. / D!$ 66:

, &

F !

F , #

& &

D 5 $ ' viii) % 6

/ % $352 > F

D ;

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 9 + &"!

#$ &

= &

D "!

#$ +

& & &

$ +

;

' ix)

6 " .,/ / 2

!'&:<

$ ( "

* GD;

* (C4/0050 $$.57/005E 699:;

D 3#

! $ &++&

$ ? $ +

( % 4EE/

$$/9/7EE. $$38 5E7EE./D!$66:' 5.

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue of counting of seniority of Fast Track Court Judges, it is obvious that Fast Track Courts were established for distinct and temporary purposes under the recommendations of 11th Finance Commission. The appointments as ADJ (Adhoc/FTC) were made under separate set of Rules, namely, Punjab Additional District & Sessions Judges (Adhoc) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2001, (hereinafter referred to as '2001 Rules'), which , provided in clear terms, under proviso to Rule 3(1) that services rendered by appointees under 2001 Rules shall not be counted or added as service rendered by appointees under Punjab Superior Judicial Services Rules, 1963, later repealed and replaced by Rules of 2007. The relevant Rule 3(1) including the proviso of 2001 Rules is reproduced hereinbelow as under:<

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 10 . 7)H

-I& # C D ;

8 + D

# $ " %"

# $ " &"!

Thus, once it is clear that the appointment as ADJ (Adhoc/FTC) was under a separate set of Rules, 2001 i.e. 2001 Rules, which expressly prohibit treating of ADJ (Adhoc/FTC) as member of ADJ (substantive under 1963/2007 Rules, the question of petitioner seeking benefit of counting seniority rendered as ADJ (Adhoc/FTC) does not arise. 7.

Another submission raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that private respondents ought to be shown junior to him in the regular cadre of Additional District Judge, also does not hold any water. 7.1 The private respondents No.2 to 16 were promoted substantively in the cadre of Additional District & Sessions Judges under the Rules of 2007 in the year 2011, whereas the petitioner was promoted in the said cadre as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the year 2012 (Annexure P<7). The petitioner thus cannot claim seniority in the cadre of Additional District Judge over and above the private respondents from the date when he was not even born in that cadre. Granting relief to the petitioner in the attending facts and circumstances would be going against all established canons of service jurisprudence.

Civil Writ Petition No. 22297 of 2021 11 8.

In view of the above conspectus facts and circumstances and discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out.

The instant petition stands dismissed sans costs. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE 20.03.2025 ravinder Whetherspeaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No