Rajendra Kumar Shrivas vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1514 OF 2023 (Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No. 32872/2018)

Rajendra Kumar Shrivas …Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others …Respondents

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3190/2018, by

which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition by holding that

the original writ petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto, Signature Not Verified

the original writ petitioner No.1 has preferred the present appeal. Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.03.13 16:11:38 IST Reason: 1

2. Before the High Court, the original writ petitioners prayed for the

following reliefs:

A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to call the entire record of the appointments of the Quota under

limited competitive examination since 2007 and pursue it and quash the

impugned order dated 19.01.2018 (Annex. P-11) and 25.01.2018.

B. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

cancel the appointments Exceeds 10% of Quota of the candidates to

appointed through limited competitive examination u/r 5(1)(b) of rules

1994, since 2007 to 2017 exceeds the limit of 10% quota as fixed by

Hon’ble Supreme Court and direct to filled up the seats with regular

promotion.

C. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to

direct to the respondents to make the necessary amendment in rule 5(1)

(b) of the rules 1994 and reduce the limit from 25% to 10% appointment in

limited competitive examination so that Hon’ble Apex Court order dated

20.04.2010 passed in All India Judges Association and others V/s Union of

India and others may be compliance.

D. The Hon’ble Court may kindly direct to the initiate departmental enquiry,

against the authority who deliberately disobedient the order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and with regard to not following the quota limit of 10% u/r

5(1)(b) of rules of 1994 with regard to limited competitive examination, and

punish to them an accordance with law.

2 E. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this

case, along with the cost of this writ petition be also awarded.

3. Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of the original writ

petitioners that despite the directions issued by this Court in the case of

All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of India and

Others, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 170, directing all the High Courts to

fill up the posts in the higher judiciary by reserving 10% seats to be filled

up by limited departmental competitive examination, the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh has exceeded the quota and has filled up the posts in

the higher judiciary beyond 10% quota. It is/was the case on behalf of

the original writ petitioners that despite the specific direction issued by

this Court directing all the High Courts to see that the existing Service

Rules be amended positively with effect from 1.1.2011, the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh did not amend the rules providing 10% seats to be

filled up by limited departmental competitive examination.

4. By the impugned judgment and order and despite the fact that the

aforesaid reliefs were prayed by the original writ petitioners, the High

Court has considered that the original writ petitioners have prayed for a

writ of quo warranto. The aforesaid reliefs cannot be said to be the

reliefs of a writ of quo warranto. However, instead of remanding the

3 matter to the High Court, we ourselves have considered the matter and

the issues on merits.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court has

submitted that initially in the year 2005, the High Court did amend the

Recruitment Rules, however, the same came to be set aside by the High

Court and the matter reached to this Court and thereafter after

conclusion of the proceedings before this Court in the year 2018, the

High Court amended the Recruitment Rules in line with the directions

issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association

(supra).

5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court has also

further submitted that in absence of the selected/appointed candidates,

no relief can be granted by quashing and setting aside the

appointments made in excess of the quota beyond 10%.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

This Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association (supra)

specifically directed that from the date of the said judgment, there shall

be 25% of seats for direct recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are to

be filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and

10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitive

examination. This Court also further directed that if the candidates are

4 not available for 10% seats, or are not able to qualify in the examination

then vacant posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in accordance

with the Service Rules applicable. This Court also further directed that

all the High Courts to take steps to see that existing Service Rules be

amended positively with effect from 1.1.2011. This Court also further

directed that if the Rules are not suitably amended, the said order shall

prevail and further recruitment from 1.1.2011 shall be continued

accordingly as directed.

7. Therefore, as per the directions issued by this Court in the

aforesaid decision, on and from 1.1.2011, only 10% seats are to be filled

up by limited departmental competitive examination. Any appointment

beyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitive

examination therefore shall have to be considered appointment excess

in quota.

8. In the present case, in the year 2017, there were 740 sanctioned

posts. Therefore, 74 seats were to be filled up by limited departmental

competitive examination against which 78 posts were filled up by limited

departmental examination. Thereafter, further 11 posts were advertised,

out of which 5 posts were filled up. The result would be that the posts

were filled up by limited departmental competitive examination beyond

10% seats quota for limited departmental competitive examination. As

5 observed hereinabove and as directed by this Court, 10% seats were

required to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination

w.e.f. 1.1.2011 and any recruitment made from 1.1.2011 onwards.

Therefore, the High Court has to undertake the exercise from 1.1.2011

adjusting the posts and if any appointments are found to have been

made beyond 10% seats in a particular recruitment, the same shall have

to be adjusted in future recruitment.

9. So far as challenge to the appointments made in excess of the

quota under limited departmental competitive examination since 2007

and the appointments made in the year 2017/2018, no relief can be

granted to the original writ petitioners in absence of those

selected/appointed candidates.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High

Court has strongly opposed the locus of original writ petitioners by

submitted that original writ petitioner No.1 – appellant herein was a

suspended judicial officer who subsequently came to be compulsorily

retired. However, without further opining on the locus of the original writ

petitioners, we have considered the matter on merits in light of the

decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association

(supra).

6

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal stands disposed of by directing as under:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh is hereby directed to act as per

the directions issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’

Association (supra), more particularly directions contained in

paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision and is directed to see that 10%

seats are filled up by limited departmental competitive examination on

and from 1.1.2011 and if it is found that in any recruitment subsequent

to 1.1.2011, the 10% quota is breached, all such posts shall be

adjusted in the future recruitments.

11. The instant Civil Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

No costs.

…………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; …………………………………J. MARCH 13, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

7