9 Nov 2023 9:56 AM GMT
Can the past service in the judicial services of another State be taken into account for the purpose of benefits in the judicial service of one state? The Supreme Court is set is examine this issue in a case.
Recently, the Court issued notice to the Delhi High Court in a Special Leave Petition filed against the Delhi High Court order wherein one Ms. Neetu Nagar, a candidate serving in Delhi Judicial service (DJS), was not permitted to appear in examination for promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The High Court rejected her claim on the basis that she has not completed ten years’ service as a Judicial Officer in the Delhi Judicial Service.
The petitioner was seeking to participate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and the prerequisite for participating in the same is the fulfilment of ten years of qualifying service.
Though the petitioner (Neetu Nagar) joined Delhi Judicial Service on 05.06.2018; however, it is being contended that the petitioner’s past service as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) with the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (HCS) be counted for the purpose of calculating these ten years.
The matter was placed before Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol.
Senior Advocate V. Giri, who represented petitioner before the Top Court, also pointed out the communication of the Delhi High Court’s Registrar General to highlight that the petitioner was permitted to carry forward her past service benefits, prior to joining the Delhi Judicial Service. He also highlighted that the petitioner has performed well in the exam, securing third rank in the merit list.
Under these facts and circumstances, it was argued that considering petitioner as ineligible would cause her injustice given that, including HCS, she has completed ten years of service.
Reasoning of Impugned Judgment
At the outset, the Delhi High Court observed that HCS and DJS are distinct judicial services of two different States governed by different service rules and controlled by different High Courts. It was also noted that given that the petitioner has resigned from HCS and has joined another distinct service i.e. DJS on her own volition thus, her case would lie under simpliciter resignation rather than transfer or absorption.
“Furthermore, since DJS and HCS are not departments of an All India Judicial Service, the petitioner had to complete the prescribed eligibility criteria of service in the feeder grade i.e. DJS.,” the Court added.
Moving forward, the Court reiterated that the eligibility for sitting in the examination is based on the Rule laying down the criteria for such eligibility. In this backdrop, the Court adverted to Rule 2(e) of the DJS Rules wherein ‘service’ means the Delhi Judicial Service.
“There being no provision for inter-changeability or counting of previous service in any other service in the said DJS Rules, this Court cannot extend such benefit beyond the prescribed purview thereof.,” explained the Court.
Before pronouncing its decision, the Court also held that permitting the petitioner to appear in the LDCE would amount to her bypassing other candidates and thus it would disturb the seniority in the cadre.
“Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the petitioner to appear in the LDCE on the basis of her past service with the HCS would amount to permitting her to take a leap over other judicial officers who are otherwise her peers, or are senior to her, in the DJS but are unable to appear in the exam on account of not having the requisite years of service in the DJS.”
Accordingly, refused to accept petitioner’s prayer and dismissed her plea.
Case Status: Neetu Nagar v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & anr., Diary No(S). 20576/2023
Click Here To Read/Download Order