RAJENDRA KUMAR SHRIVAS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS on 13 March 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentEand 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 theHigh Court has dismissed the said writ petition by holding that the originalwrit petitioners are not entitled to seek a writ of quo warranto, the:original writ petitioner No.1 has preferred the present appeal.F2. Before the High Court, the original writ petitioners prayed forthe following reliefs:

A. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to call the entire record of the appointments of the Quota underlimited competitive examination since 2007 and pursue it and quash theGimpugned order dated 19.01.2018 (Annex. P-11) and 25.01.2018.

B. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to cancel the appointments Exceeds 10% of Quota of thecandidates 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 H

fixed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and direct to filled up the seats withregular promotion.

C. It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly bepleased to direct to the respondents to make the necessary amendmentin 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 ApexCourt order dated 20.04.2010 passed in All India Judges Associationand others V/s Union of India and others may be compliance.

D. The Hon’ble Court may kindly direct to the initiate departmentalenquiry, against the authority who deliberately disobedient the order ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court and with regard to not following the quotalimit of 10% u/r 5(1)(b) of rules of 1994 with regard to limited competitiveexamination, and punish to them an accordance with law.

E. Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstancesof 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 originalwrit petitioners that despite the directions issued by this Court in thecase of All India Judges’ Association and Others v. Union of Indiaand Others, reported in (2010) 15 SCC 170, directing all the HighCourts to fill up the posts in the higher judiciary by reserving 10% seatsto be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination, the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh has exceeded the quota and has filled up theposts in the higher judiciary beyond 10% quota. It is/was the case onbehalf of the original writ petitioners that despite the specific directionissued by this Court directing all the High Courts to see that the existingService Rules be amended positively with effect from 1.1.2011, the HighCourt of Madhya Pradesh did not amend the rules providing 10% seatsto be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination.

4. By the impugned judgment and order and despite the fact thatthe aforesaid reliefs were prayed by the original writ petitioners, theHigh Court has considered that the original writ petitioners have prayedfor a writ of quo warranto. The aforesaid reliefs cannot be said to bethe reliefs of a writ of quo warranto. However, instead of remandingthe matter to the High Court, we ourselves have considered the matterand the issues on merits.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court hassubmitted that initially in the year 2005, the High Court did amend the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ARecruitment Rules, however, the same came to be set aside by the HighCourt and the matter reached to this Court and thereafter after conclusionof the proceedings before this Court in the year 2018, the High Courtamended the Recruitment Rules in line with the directions issued by thisCourt in the case of All India Judges’ Association (supra).

B5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court hasalso further submitted that in absence of the selected/appointedcandidates, no relief can be granted by quashing and setting aside theappointments made in excess of the quota beyond 10%.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.CThis Court in the case of

This Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association (supra)specifically directed that from the date of the said judgment, there shallbe 25% of seats for direct recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are tobe filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and10% seats are to be filled up by limited departmental competitiveexamination. This Court also further directed that if the candidates areDnot available for 10% seats, or are not able to qualify in the examinationthen vacant posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in accordancewith the Service Rules applicable. This Court also further directed thatall the High Courts to take steps to see that existing Service Rules beamended positively with effect from 1.1.2011. This Court also furtherEdirected that if the Rules are not suitably amended, the said order shallprevail and further recruitment from 1.1.2011 shall be continuedaccordingly as directed.

7. Therefore, as per the directions issued by this Court in theaforesaid decision, on and from 1.1.2011, only 10% seats are to be filledFup by limited departmental competitive examination. Any appointmentbeyond 10% seats filled up by limited departmental competitiveexamination therefore shall have to be considered appointment excessin quota.

8. In the present case, in the year 2017, there were 740 sanctionedGposts. Therefore, 74 seats were to be filled up by limited departmentalcompetitive examination against which 78 posts were filled up by limiteddepartmental examination. Thereafter, further 11 posts were advertised,out of which 5 posts were filled up. The result would be that the postswere filled up by limited departmental competitive examination beyond10% seats quota for limited departmental competitive examination. AsH

observed hereinabove and as directed by this Court, 10% seats wererequired to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examinationw.e.f. 1.1.2011 and any recruitment made from 1.1.2011 onwards.Therefore, the High Court has to undertake the exercise from 1.1.2011adjusting the posts and if any appointments are found to have been madebeyond 10% seats in a particular recruitment, the same shall have to beadjusted in future recruitment.

9. So far as challenge to the appointments made in excess of thequota under limited departmental competitive examination since 2007and the appointments made in the year 2017/2018, no relief can be grantedto the original writ petitioners in absence of those selected/appointedcandidates.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the HighCourt has strongly opposed the locus of original writ petitioners bysubmitted that original writ petitioner No.1 – appellant herein was asuspended judicial officer who subsequently came to be compulsorilyretired. However, without further opining on the locus of the originalwrit petitioners, we have considered the matter on merits in light of thedecision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association(supra).

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal stands disposed of by directing as under:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh is hereby directed to act asper the directions issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’Association (supra), more particularly directions contained in paragraphs8 & 9 of the said decision and is directed to see that 10% seats are filledup by limited departmental competitive examination on and from 1.1.2011and 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 futurerecruitments.

11. The instant Civil Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaidterms. No costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal disposed of.