http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: S. JAMALDEEN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIGH COURT OF MADRAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/03/1997

BENCH: CJI, SUHAS C. SEN, B.N. KIRPAL

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: [With Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1997 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6584 of 1997 (CC No. 3647)]                      J U D G E M E N T SEN, J.      Leave granted.      The Tamil  Nadu State  subordinate judiciary originally consisted  of   two  separate  services,  Tamil  Nadu  state Magisterial Service  and Tamil  Nadu judicial  service.  The Magisterial Service consisted of two categories. Subordinate Magistrates (later  redesignated as  Judicial  Second  Class Magistrates) and  Additional First  Class Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial First Class Magistrates).      The Judicial  Service also consisted of two categories, the Subordinate  Judge and  below the  post  of  Subordinate Judge was the post of District Munsif.      The recruitment  and promotions  to the  posts  in  the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was governed by Tamil Nadu State Judicial service  Rules (here  in after  referred to as ’the Rules’) which  came into  force  on  1.1.1955.  Under  these rules, recruitment to the post of Subordinate Judge was only by  promotion   from  the   post  of  District  Munsif.  The appointments to  the post  of District  Munsif was by direct recruitment from  the bar  or by transfer from various posts in the State and Subordinate Services. There were as many as nine categories  of posts  which formed the feeder cadre for transfer to  the post  of District Munsif. Class 6 of feeder cadre comprised  of Judicial  Second Class  Magistrates  and Judicial First  Class Magistrates  in the  Tamil Nadu  State Magisterial Service.      In the  Magisterial Service, appointment to the post of Judicial First  Class Magistrates, was by promotion from the post of  Judicial Second Class Magistrates or by transfer of service  from   Assistant  Public  Prosecutor  Grade  I  and appointment to the post of Judicial Second Class Magistrates was by direct recruitment from the bar and by transfer  from various departments of the Government in the ratio of 6|4.      In the  Judicial Service, the recruitment could be made only through  the Tamil  Nadu Public Service Commission. The names  recommended   by  the   Tamil  Nadu   Public  Service Commission in the year 1965 were exhausted in the year 1967.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

Thereafter   the vacancies  which arose  were filled  up  by making temporary  appointments by transfer from the eligible services and  by direct  recruitment from  the  bar  on  the recommendation of  the High  Court. This inflow of temporary appointments on  transfer was  one of  the reasons  for  the backlog in  fixing seniority,  regularisation and consequent promotions of  the respective  officers.  During  the  years 1960-74, nearly  110 Judicial  Second Class Magistrates were appointed on  transfer on purely temporary basis. Out of the said 110  Judicial Second  Class Magistrates,  only about 37 were regularised  by G.O.  No. 1924,  Home Department  dated 22.10.1975. In the year, 1982 about 80 Judicial Second Class Magistrates were appointed temporarily by direct recruitment from among the bar.      These facts  have been  recorded in the judgement under appeal and are not in dispute.      The Chairman  of the  Bar Council of Tamil Nadu filed a Writ Petition  No.  11604/81  and  on  20.1.1982  orders  of injunction  were  passed  restraining  the  Government  from regularising the  services of all the temporary Second Class Magistrates. This  had the effect of stalling the process of regularisation of temporary judicial officers. Two more writ petition were  filed in  the High  Court (W.P. Nos. 3053 and 3294/1984). In  these writ petitions, a direction was sought for filling  up  of  all  the  vacancies  in  the  posts  of Magistrates and District Munsifs only in accordance with the Rules.      By an  order dated  10.5.85, these  writ petitions were allowed  and   directions  were  issued  to  regularise  the appointments through  the process of selection by Tamil Nadu Public Service  Commission within  four months and to put an end to the temporary arrangement.      While these  proceedings were  going on  in the  Madras High Court,  petitions were made in this Court in which this Court ordered  transfer of proceedings pending in the Madras High Court  and both  the writ petitions filed in the Madras High Court and the writ appeals were disposed of by an order dated 5.8.1986 in which it was inter alia directed as under:      "We find  from the  record that the      High Court  at a full Court meeting      held on  30th April,  1986,  passed      the  following resolution |      ’Insofar as the suggestions made in      the   letter    of    Mr.    Govind      Swaminathan are concerned, the High      Court   is   agreeable   only   for      regularisation  of   such  of   the      Second Class  as are found fit on a      proper scrutiny  by a  Committee of      Judges.  This  regularisation  will      only be  in the  cadre of  Judicial      Magistrates of  the  Second  Class.      The High  Court is  not prepared to      accept the suggestion that Judicial      Magistrates of the Second Class who      are officiating  either as Judicial      First  Class   Magistrates  or   as      District    Munsifs    should    be      regularised as Judicial First Class      Magistrates or District Munsifs, as      the case may be. The regularisation      will be  within the  limits of  the      ratio prescribed by the Recruitment      Rules.  The   Government  be   also      informed that  such an  arrangement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

    has  been  agreed  to  between  the      Chief Minister  and the  High Court      will  implement   the   same.   The      Magistrates Association  has  given      to the  Chief Justice  in writing a      letter that  they are  prepared  to      have the  officers  screened  by  a      committee of  Judges  and  such  of      those who are not found fit be sent      back.’      Since the  arrangement set  out  in      this  resolution   is   agreed   to      between the  Chief Justice  and the      Chief Minister  and the  High Court      has agreed  to implement  the same,      we would  direct that  the class of      temporary   Judicial   Magistrates,      Second Class,  shall be scrutinised      by a Committee consisting of two or      more learned  Judges  of  the  High      Court  and   after   scrutiny   and      assessment of their merits, ability      and integrity by the Committee, the      High Court  will decide how many of      them  should   be  regularised   as      Judicial Magistrates, Second Class.      This regularisation  will be within      the limits  of the ratio prescribed      by  the   recruitment  rules.   The      seniority   of    those   who   are      regularised will  be fixed  by  the      High Court  in accordance  with the      quota prescribed  by the  rules, in      other  words,   seniority  will  be      fixes   with    effect   from   the      respective dates  on which  each of      them  would   have  been  regularly      appointed,  having  regard  to  the      quota rule.  The temporary Judicial      Magistrates,   First    Class    or      District Munsifs  even if they have      been promoted  as such.  They will,      however,   be    entitled   to   be      considered   for    promotion    in      accordance    with     the    rules      regulating  promotions.  They  will      also be entitled to compete for the      posts of  District Munsifs. We hope      and  trust  that  the  question  of      regularisation will  be taken up by      the High Court at an early date, so      that   those    who   are   to   be      regularised, are  assured of  their      position."      A further  order was passed by this Court on 14.11.1986 on   application of  some of  the parties  which was  to the following effect:      "We directed by our order dated 5th      August,  1986  that  the  cases  of      temporary Judicial Magistrates, 2nd      Class shall  be  scrutinised  by  a      Committee consisting of two or more      Judges of  the High Court and after      scrutiny and  assessment  of  their      merits, ability  and  integrity  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

    the Committee,  the High Court will      decide how  many of  them should be      regularised       as       Judicial      Magistrates,   2nd    Class.   This      regularisation will  be within  the      limits of  the ratio  prescribed by      the  recruitment   rules.  We  also      directed   that    the    temporary      Judicial  Magistrates,  2nd  Class,      will be  regularised  only  in  the      cadre of  Judicial Magistrates, 2nd      Class   and    not   as    Judicial      Magistrates, 1st  Class or District      Munsifs  even  if  they  have  been      promoted as such and that they will      be entitled  to be  considered  for      promotion to  the post  of District      Munsifs. We   are  informed by  the      Registrar of  the High  Court  that      the High  Court has  constituted  a      Committee  of   three  Judges   for      scrutinising the cases of temporary      Judicial Magistrates, 2nd Class, as      provided in our order and that this      particular task  is expected  to be      completed within four months. Since      we have directed that the temporary      Judicial  Magistrates,  2nd  Class,      after scrutiny  and  assessment  of      their merits, ability and integrity      etc. should  be regularised  within      the limits  of the ratio prescribed      by the  recruitment  rules,  it  is      obvious that  the regularisation of      temporary Judicial Magistrates, 2nd      Class who are found fit by the High      Court should  be made in accordance      with the  quota prescribed  by  the      recruitment  rules   and  if   they      cannot be  regularised within their      quota in a particular year in which      they  have   been  appointed,  they      would have  to be  pushed  down  in      order that  they  may  be  absorbed      within   their    quota   in    the      subsequent years,  if it  is  found      that out  of the temporary Judicial      Officers, 2nd  Class, who are found      fit,  any   of   them   cannot   be      regularised within  their quota  by      31st March, 1987. (we are modifying      this date  on the  basis  that  the      High Court  requires  a  period  of      four   months   to   complete   the      scrutiny). We  would  suggest  that      such       temporary       Judicial      Magistrates,  2nd   Class,  may  be      continued on supernumerary posts to      be created  by the State Government      and  they   may  continue  in  such      supernumerary posts until such time      as they  are absorbed  within their      quota in  the following  years. But      on no  account should  the quota be      branched or  violated in any manner

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

    whatsoever."      Pursuant to  the  directions  of  this  Court  and  the findings of  the Screening  Committee  of  the  Madras  High Court, the  Government there  upon regularised the temporary services of  the Judicial  Officers in  question as Judicial Second Class  Magistrates in  two batches, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1053, Home dated 10.5.1988 and G.O. Ms. No. 1269, Home dated 2.6.1988, whereby  182 and  34 temporary  Judicial  Officers respectively were regularised.      The Tamil  Nadu Public  Service Commission  in order to fill up  vacancies in the posts of District Munsifs, started the selection  process and  ordered the  appointment  of  56 District Munsifs on 21.9.1988. It was at this stage that the Government passed  an order  introducing an amendment to the Tamil Nadu  State Judicial  Service Rules, providing for the manner of  integration and fixation of inter se seniority of the members of the integrated service. The amendments wee to come into force with effect from 6.10.1988. At that time the Tamil  Nadu   State  Judicial  Service  consisted  of  three categories of District Munsifs -      (1)  those   who   were   regularly      appointed through  the  Tamil  Nadu      Public   Service    Commission   on      26.3.1986 and 21.9.1988;      (2) those  who  were  selected  and      appointed by  the Tamil Nadu Public      Service Commission  from out of the      regularised Judicial  Second  Class      Magistrates; and      (3)  those   who  became   District      Munsifs  on   6.10.1988  consequent      upon the principle of integration.      A  Government  Order  G.O.  Ms.  No.  2196  was  issued introducing several  amendments  to  the  Tamil  Nadu  State Judicial Service  Rules besides  rescinding the  Tamil  Nadu State Magisterial Service Rules.      The validity  of these  amendments was  challenged by a number of  writ petitions  before the Madras High Court. The challenge, in particular, was to the third proviso which was added to  Rule 20  by clause 7 of the said Government Order. The said proviso fixed the principle of fixation of inter se seniority of  judicial officers.  Rule 20  as amended  is as follows|-      "20. Seniority.- The seniority of a      person in the category of a service      shall, unless  he has  been reduced      to a lower rank as a punishment, be      determined by  the rank assigned to      him in  the list drawn by the Tamil      Nadu Public  Service Commission  or      the appointing  authority   as  the      case may be, subject to the rule of      reservation where  it applies.  The      date   of   commencement   of   his      probation  shall  be  the  date  on      which he joins duty irrespective of      his seniority  in the  list. In the      case of  member of category 2, such      date shall be the date on which the      approved candidate joins duty after      training.      Provided that  the seniority of any      person in  a service or post of the      merged  territory  of  Pudukkottai,      who is  absorbed in  a  service  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    post under  the Government of Tamil      Nadu   shall   be   determined   as      follows|-      (i) If  he is  absorbed in  a  post      similar  to   that  which   he  was      formerly holding  in the service of      the     merged     territory     of      Pudukkottai, his seniority shall be      determined by  the date  from which      he  was  holding  the  former  post      continuously.      (ii) If he is absorbed in a post of      higher scale of pay than that which      he  was  formerly  holding  in  the      service,  his  seniority  shall  be      determined by  the date on which he      joined   the    post   under    the      Government of Tamil Nadu.      (iii) If  he is  absorbed in a post      other  than   those  specified   in      clauses (i)  and (ii),  which  does      not improve  his cadre and scale of      pay in  the service,  his seniority      shall be determined on the basis of      merit:      Provided further that the seniority      in a  category of  the service of a      person who  immediately before  the      1st November,  1956, was serving in      connection with  the affairs of the      former State  of  Travancore-Cochin      and who is allotted to the State of      Tamil  Nadu  for  absorption  in  a      category of  the service  under the      Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   be      determined by  the date  from which      he was  continuously holding a post      in the  corresponding  category  in      the  former  State  of  Travancore-      Cochin; if  the  seniority  of  any      such person  and that  of any other      person in the said service  or post      has to be           determined with      reference to  the  same  date,  the      older of the two shall be deemed to      be senior.      Provided also  that as  on the date      of  coming   into  force   of  this      proviso,   all   regular   Judicial      Magistrates  of   the  First  Class      shall be  placed according to their      existing seniority  below the order      of   seniority   of   the   regular      Distinct Munsifs and below them all      permanent Judicial  Magistrates  of      the Second  Class shall  be  placed      according   to    their    existing      seniority and  below them  all  the      Judicial  Magistrates   of   Second      Class  whose   services  have  been      regularised   before    the    31st      January,  1976   shall  be   placed      according   to    their    existing      seniority. All  the Judicial Second      Class  Magistrates  whose  services

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

    have been  regularised  during  the      year 1988  shall  be  placed  below      those   Judicial    Second    Class      Magistrates  whose   services  were      regularised  prior   to   31.1.1976      according   to    their    existing      seniority."      The writ  petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 5.10.1989. An  appeal was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge.      The appeal  court held  that the  third proviso Rule 20 was valid, logical and reasonable. It further observed:-      "The mere  fact that their services      may be  regularised in  respect  of      some  of  them  from  such  earlier      dates    of     their     temporary      officiation under Rule 11(4) of the      Rules   is    an   irrelevant   and      extraneous consideration  in so far      as fixation  of inter  se seniority      of  the   members  of  the  service      forming the  integrated service  is      concerned. The  inter se  seniority      shall have  to be  determined  only      by    applying    the    principles      contained in  the ****  proviso  to      Rule 20 of the Rules."      The appeal was accordingly dismissed.      Special Leave Petition (No. 10214/91) filed against the appellate order was dismissed by this Court on 5.12.94.      In the  meantime, the  Administrative Committee  of the High Court  comprising of  the Chief  Justice and  two other learned Judges  of the  Madras  High  Court  went  into  the question of  fixing inter  se seniority  of District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrates and a provisional list was prepared which  was  circulated  on  12.8.1994  and  objections  were invited to be filed on or before 24.8.1994. Subsequently, as requested by  some of  the Judicial  Officers, the  time for filing   objections was  extended till  12.9.1994. About 105 Judicial          Officers          submitted          their objections/representations.  These  objections  were  placed before the  Administrative Committee  and  duly  taken  into consideration. Ultimately,  on 15.9.1994  the Administrative Committee after  considering the  various objections  placed the recommendations  before the Full Court on 23.9.1994. The following resolution  was passed  at the meeting of the Full Court:-      "It is  resolved  to  overrule  the      objections raised  by some  of  the      officials and  accept the seniority      list, as approved by the Committee,      subject  to   Thiru  G.  Mangapathy      being placed  at S.No. 76, Thiru G.      Frederick Kanagaraj  at  S.No.  77,      Thiru G.  Namasivayam at  S.No.  78      and Thiru  J.D. Joseph  at S.No. 79      and also subject to the decision of      the Supreme  Court  in  S.L.P.  No.      10214 of 1991.      It is  further  resolved  that  the      Registrar shall  file an  affidavit      in S.L.P.  No. 10214  of  1991  and      produce  the   seniority  list   as      determined as  per this  resolution      following the judgement in W.A. No.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

    944  of   1989,  which  is  subject      matter of  S.L.P. No. 10214 of 1991      and also produce the Resolutions of      Administrative  Committee  No.  III      and the gist of objections filed by      the District  Munsifs,  Which  have      been overruled."      The aforesaid  facts relating to the proceedings of the Administrative  Committee  about  the  finalisation  of  the seniority list and the decision of the Full Court was stated by the  Registrar of  the Madras  High Court  by way  of  an additional counter  affidavit filed  in the  pending Special Leave Petition  No. 10214  of  1991.  A  Notification  dated 5.10.1994 was  also issued  fixing the  seniority list. This was published  in  the  Tamil  Nadu  Government  Gazette  on 12.10.1994.      On 15.10.1994  a Writ  petition No.  18121/94 was filed challenging the  final list  of seniority.  On 19.10.1994 an interim order  was passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid Writ  Petition, restraining   the  High Court from giving effect  to the  final list.  Further Writ   Petitions (nos. 18162 and 19938 of 1994) were filed on 22.10.1994. The entire group  of Writ  Petitions challenging  the  seniority list was  heard by  a Division Bench of the High Court which quashed the  seniority  list  fixed  by  the  Administrative Committee and  the Full  Court of  the  High  Court  by  its judgement and  order dated  7.2.1995. The Division Bench was of the  view that  the points  in issue  were  substantially concluded by  the   judgement in the earlier Writ Petitions. It has  been pointed  out by  the appellants  that the  High Court was  clearly in  error in  coming to  that  conclusion because in  the  earlier  Writ  Petitions  Particularly  two points were considered:-      (a) The proviso to Rule 20 of Tamil      Nadu State  Judicial service  Rules      is  arbitrary   and  violative   of      Articles   14   and   16   of   the      Constitution  of   India   as   the      proviso  is   not  based   on   the      principle   that   in   determining      seniority, length of service in the      particular category alone should be      taken into  account and  those  who      have  been   holding  the  post  of      District  Munsif  for  long  period      should not be denied the benefit of      their service.      (b)  That   the  temporary  service      rendered  by   the  appellants   as      District Munsifs must be taken into      consideration  for   fixing   their      inter se seniority as on 6.10.1988.      The Division Bench held that the power and authority of the  employer   to  frame  rules  on  seniority  has  to  be recognised and the general principle of length of service in a  particular grade is subject to specific rules and orders, if any,  to the  contrary. In  the instant  case, there were specific rules on the subject, namely, Rule 20 and the third proviso and  the principle  underlying the third proviso was necessitated  to   meet  the   extraordinary   circumstances prevailing in  the particular service in question and in the context of  integration, there  was nothing  unreasonable or arbitrary in  the formula  contained in the third proviso to Rule 20. Therefore, the third proviso to Rule 20 was validly framed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

    Therefore, the  principal issue  in  the  earlier  writ petition was  the validity  of the third proviso to Rule 20. The challenge  to the  validity of  this third  proviso  was rejected by  the Division  Bench.   But the  dispute in this appeal is  not about  the validity  of the  third proviso to Rule 20  or any  other rule governing the service conditions of the  Judicial Officers.  The question  in  this  case  is whether the  rules were correctly understood and implemented by the Administrative Committee or the Full Court by issuing the seniority  list. Any  other observation  which  was  not germane to  the dispute  raised before  the  Division  bench could not be treated as res judicata between the parties.      Moreover, the  earlier  writ  petition  was  by  a  few persons and  all the  affected persons  were not  parties to that writ  petition. That  apart these  writ petitions  were filed  before   fixation  of   the  Seniority  List  by  the Administrative Committee  or the  Full Court.  What  is  now under challenge  is this  Seniority List.  the  question  of validity of this Seniority List could not have been an issue in the  earlier writ petitions. The High Court was not right in invoking  the principle  of res  judicata in the facts of this case.  The High  Court also  overlooked the  scope  and effect of  Rules 2(b)(i), 2(10) and 2(9) of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules:-      "Rule 2  (b)(i). ’Appointed  to the      service’      A person  is to be appointed to the      service  when  in  accordance  with      these rules,  he discharges for the      first time  the duties  of the post      borne on  the cadre  of the service      or    commences    the    probation      prescribed  for members thereof.      Rule 2(10). ’Member of the Service’      Member  of   the  service  means  a      person who  has been  appointed  to      the  service   and  who   has   not      retired,  or   resigned,  had  been      removed    or    dismissed,    been      substantively    transferred     to      another service or being discharged      other than  for want  of a vacancy.      He  may   be  a   probationer   and      approved  probationr   or  a   full      member of the service.      Rule 2(9). ‘Full member’      Full member  of the service means a      member of  the service who has been      appointed   substantively    to   a      permanent post             borne on      the cadre thereof."      The 75  recruits in  1988 including Respondents 4 to 14 became members  of the  service only after 31.10.88, namely, when they started discharging the duties of the post for the first time.  They could not claim seniority over the persons who were  already members of the service. The fact that they started discharging  their duties  after 31.10.1988  is  not disputed.      The resolution  of the  Administrative Committee  which was adopted  by the Full Court Correctly states the position in law as under:-      "The expression  "appointed to  the      Service"  has  been  defined  under      Rule 2(b)  of the  Tamil Nadu State      Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

    referred to as the Rules. According      to the said definition, a person is      said to be appointed to the service      when  ,   in  accordance  with  the      Rules, he  discharges for the first      time the  duties of  the post borne      on the  cadre  of  the  service  or      commences the  probation prescribed      for the members thereof. It is from      this date only he becomes a "member      of  the   Service"   as   per   the      definition   of   that   expression      contained  in  Rule  2(10)  of  the      Rules. Therefore,  either the  date      of  selection   or  the   date   of      appointment cannot be considered as      the date  on  which  the  appointee      discharges for  the first  time the      duties of  the post  to which he is      appointed .  It is only pursuant to      the appointment, when the appointee      reports to  duty he  can be said to      have discharged  his duties for the      first time  on the  date he reports      to duty and from that date only his      period  of   probation   commences.      However, this  will not  affect the      inter-se-seniority of  the officers      appointed    under     the     same      notification "of the Public Service      Commission    which     make    the      selection. We are not now concerned      with the inter-se- seniority of the      candidates selected  by the  Public      Service   Commission    under   its      notification dt.  21.9.1988, but we      are     concerned      with     the      determination  of   the   seniority      between    District     Munsif-cum-      Judicial Magistrates who came to be      selected  by   the  Public  Service      Commission   under its Notification      dt. 21.9.1988.  The proviso to Rule      20  also   does   not   give   them      seniority over the District Munsif-      cum-Judicial Magistrates  who  were      in     service     before     their      appointment.   It    provides   for      fixation of  seniority as specified      below:-      (i)   Regular District Munsifs.      (ii)   Regular Judicial First Class      Magistrates.      (iii)  Permanent   Judicial  Second      Class Magistrates.      (iv)  Regularised Judicial Second      Class Magistrates whose      services have been regularised      before 31.1.1976.      (v)  Regularised   Judicial  Second      Class  Magistrates  whose  services      have been  regularised in  the year      1988.      Out of  the 128 candidates selected      by the  Public  Service  Commission

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

    under   its    notification   dated      21.9.88, 70 were recruited from the      Bar and  53  were  those  who  were      already in  Magisterial Service and      whose   services    came   to    be      integrated on  6.10.1988,  and  the      remaining 5 were selected by way of      transfer from other non-magisterial      services.  Thus,  out  of  the  128      candidates selected,  53 candidates      were already in service as Judicial      Second Class  Magistrates and their      services came  to be  integrated in      the cadre  of District  Munsif-cum-      Judicial  Magistrates   under   the      order dated  6.10.1988. Thus,  they      became District Munsif-cum-Judicial      Magistrates   on    6.10.1988   and      commenced to discharge their duties      as such  from 6.10.1988, as per the      definition   of    the   expression      "appointed   to    the    Service",      referred  to  above.  Consequently,      they have  to be  ranked above  the      other 75 candidates selected by the      Public Service Commission under its      notification  dated  21.9.1988  and      who  joined  the  service  for  the      first time much later to 6.10.1988,      i.e., during November, 1988."      According to  the petitioners before the High Court who are now the respondents in this appeal, the judgement of the Division Bench  of the  Madras High  Court must  be  upheld. Their contention  is that  the  Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service Commission selected  128 candidates as per the ratio of 11:9 prescribed by  the Tamil  Nadu Judicial  Service Rules 1955. Out of  the 128,  70 were   from  the Bar  and 58  were from Feeder categories,  that is Judicial  Magistrate I Class and II Class  and Non  Magisterial cadre. The selection list was published  by   notification  dated   7.6.1988.  The   above selectees  were  appointed  in  G.O.    Ms.  2064  Home  dt. 21.9.1988. In  this G.O.  the State Government requested the High Court  in para  9 to give posting orders to the persons appointed as  District Munsifs  working temporarily.  Before issuing respective  posting orders  to the  individuals  who were  appointed  as  District  Munsifs  in  the  substantive vacancies, on  the recommendation of the High Court, Madras, the state  Govt. issued  G.O. Ms.  2196 Home  dt. 6.10.1988, upgrading the  posts of Judicial Second Class Magistrates to Judicial First  Class Magistrates  and integrating them with District Munsifs. This G.O. had amended the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service  Rules by  introducing proviso 3 to Rule 20 providing for the fixation of inter-se-seniority between the regular District  Munsifs and  the upgraded Magistrates, who could not  get selected as District Munsifs in the selection by Tamil  Nadu Public  Service Commission, below the Regular District Munsifs  selected and appointed for the substantial vacancies in the year 1988.      On behalf  of the  appellants, it  has been  urged that prior to  6.10.1988 when  Tamil Nadu  State Judicial Service Rules came  into force by G.O.M. No. 1053 dated May 10,1988, 182  temporary   Judicial  Second   Class  Magistrates  were regularised. Similarly  by subsequent  G.O.M. No. 1269 dated 2.6.1988 services  of 34  temporary  Judicial  Second  Class Magistrates were  regularised. Although  on  21.9.1988,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

State Government  approved a list of 125 candidates selected by the  Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of District  Munsifs,  they  were  not  appointed  as  District Munsifs. All  these direct recruits whose selection by Tamil Nadu Public  Service Commission  was approved  by the  State Government on  21.9.1988, actually  joined service  only  on 3.11.1988 which  was after  the appellants  had acquired the status of  District Munsifs  when on  6.10.1988  Tamil  Nadu State Judicial  Service Rules were amended. Amongst them, 34 persons were already acting as District Munsifs on 6.10.1988 and the  rest of  them became  District Munsifs by Virtue of integration brought  into force  on 6.10.1988.  It has  been submitted that  under Rule 2(b) "Appointment to the service" is only  when a  person discharges  for the  first time  the duties of  the post  borne on  the cadre  of the service and under Rule  2(10) "Member  of the Service". It is thus clear that the  direct recruits  though selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service  Commissions for  the post of District Munsif and approved  by the  state Government  on  21.10.1988  were "appointed to  the service"  only on  3.11.1988 and  at that point of  time, all  the appellants  were  already  District Munsifs in  view of  the integration  brought about  by  the amended Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules.      We  are  of  the  view  that  the  contentions  of  the appellants must  be upheld. The Division Bench took the view that the  third proviso  to Rule  20 has  to be  taken  into consideration for the purpose of determination of seniority, but in  doing so  overlooked Rule  2(b) and  Rule 2(10). The question of  res judicata  cannot arise in this case because under the  earlier writ petition, validity of proviso (3) to Rule 20  was under  challenge was  repelled by  the  earlier Division Bench,  the Madras  High Court took up the question of determination  of seniority  of the  judicial officers in accordance with  the rules.  What was under challenge in the second batch  of writ  petitions was  the  determination  of seniority by the Full Court. The language of Rules 2 (b) and 2 (10)  is clear.  The direct  recruits were  "appointed  to service" only  on 3.11.1988.  It is only from this date that the direct  recruits started  discharging the duties for the first time. These direct recruits cannot be placed above the persons who  were already  discharging functions as District Munsifs on  regular basis  on and  from 8.10.1988  when  the Tamil Nadu  Judicial Service  Rules were  amended  to  bring about integration  of the  Services. 34 persons were already acting as  District Munsifs  even before 6.10.1988. There is nothing in  Rule 20 or the third proviso thereto which takes away the seniority of the persons who were "appointed to the service" before 3.11.1988.      In the  affidavit filed  by the  Registrar of  the High Court in  Writ Petition  No. 17737 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 17738  of 1994, the principle followed by the Full Court in determining  the seniority  was explained  which has been set out  earlier in  the judgment.  The Seniority  List  was finalised  after   inviting  objections,   and  making  some amendments pursuant to the objections.      We are  of the  view that  neither in  principle nor in practice has the Full Court committed any error of law.      The appeals  are allowed.  The  common  judgment  dated 7.2.1995  disposing   of  Writ   Petitions  Nos.   17737/94, 17738/94, 18121/94 of the High Court is set aside.      There will be no case as to costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2110 OF 1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 6584 OF 1995 (CC NO. 3647).] I.A. allowed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

    Leave granted.      In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2106-09 of 1997 (Arising  out of  S.L.P. (C)  Nos. 11111-11114 of 1995) the above  appeal is also allowed. There will be no order as to costs.