BAIJ NATH SHARMAversusHONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ANR.

                      BAIJ NATH SHARMA                                                 A
                              v.
              HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT
                      JODHPUR AND ANR.

                             SEPTEMBER 2, 1998
                                                                                       B
              [DR. AS. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

      Se1vice Law :

        Promotion-Retired employee's juniors were given promotion after his
retirement-Validity of-Held : Retired employee could have a gifrva11ce only
                                                                                       c
if liis juniors were promoted p1ior to his supera11nuatio11-But he ca11not
complain when promotions were made after his retireme11t.

       Promotion-Non-giwzt of-Due to admi11istrative inaction-Held, did
not entitle the employee to retrospective promotion from the date vacancy              D
arose-Howeve1; delay in filling up of vacancy deprecated-Hope e.:.pressed
that in future timely promotion would be given in order to avoid disappoint-
ment to the employees-Administrative Law.

      Judicimy-Vaca11cies--Held, it is not at all advisable to keep any post
vacant in judicimy when cowts are burdened with mrears and litigants are               E
the ones who suffe1~Fwthe1; ad hoc promotions should have been give11
pending regular appointment.

      Constitution of India, I 950 : Anicle 226.

       Res judicat~Applicability of-Wlit petition pemzitted to be withdrawn            F
with liberty to file representation a11d also to file a fresh w1it petition "if tlze
occasion arose''-Held : Second w1it petition not bmred by pli11ciple of res
judicata since the employee's representation was rejected'-Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908-S. I I.

       The appellant was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS)              G
and retired on superannuation on 31.5.1996. The appellant filed a writ
petition before the High Court claiming that his case for promotion to the
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) be considered from the date
when the posts in RHJS fell vacant. However, the writ petition was per-
mitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a representation and also to file          H
                                        307
                                                                                     .•




    308                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A a fresh writ petition "if any oa:asion arose•.
        The High Court (Administrative side), however, look a decision in
  its Full Court meeting on 9.2.1996 not to promote the officers from RJS
  cadre to RIUS cadre till direct recruitment from the Bar was made in
  order to prevent imbalance between the strength of promotees and direct
B recruits. However, it was found that no officer junior to the appellant was
  promoted before his superannuation. Bot four officers who were juniors
  to the appellant were promoted after the appellant had retired.

          The appellant's representation was rejeded and, therefore, the ap-
C pellanl filed a second writ petition claiming the same relief. The High
    Court dismissed this petition on the ground that it was barred by the
    principle of res judicata. Hence this appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

D         HELD: 1.1. The appellant could certainly ha,·e a grievance if any of
    his juniors had been given promotion from a date prior to his superan-
    nuation. But this is not the case here. Four officers were promoted after
    the appellant had retired and not from the dates the posts fell vacanL
    Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for promotion from the dates the
E   posts had fallen vacanL [313-D)

          1.2. It is regr;,ttable that because of the inaction on the pat;l of the
    High Court that recruitment from the Bar could not be made in time which
    created an imbalance in the. service and ultimately the appellant and
    officers similarly placed who suffered. After having put in long years or
F service it is the seniority and promotion which an officer looks forward to•
  . Jle expects he be given doe promotion in time. But here the appellant has
    been deprived of his promotion without any fault or his. At least for future
    snch an unfortunate thing should not happen to any other officer similarly
   -situated. This m::Iaise "iiich abysmally alDicts any service "iien there is
    recruitment from different sources   crops  up in one form or the other with
G great disadvantage of one or the other. But then service is not constituted
    merely for the benefit of the officers in the service but with a certain
    purpose in view and in the present case for dispensing justice to the public
    at large. It is not at all advisable to keep any post in judiciary vacant for
    da)'S when the courts are burdened with arrears and litigants are the ones •
H who su!Ter. It is expected of the High Courts to be vigilant and to fill up
                     B.N. SHARMA v. RAJASIHANH.C. AT JODHPUR                  309

     the posts in direct quota in time and if the Bar quota cannot be filled for     A
     any reason for no fault of the promotee officers their case for promotion
     should not be kept pending till some of them even superannuate. When the
     process for recruitment from the Bar begins and it is expected that posts
     for direct quota will be filled up soon, during the intervening period the
     officers in the subordinate service can be given ad hoc promotions without      B
     their right to claim seniority over direct recruits, who may join later.
     Functioning of the courts must not stop. [314-E-H; 315-A-B]

             Union of india v. KK Vadcra, AIR (1990) SC 442, relied on.
.J
 '         2. The High Court was not right in holding that the second writ           C
     petition was barred by principle of res judicata since the appellant's repre-
     sentation was rejected. [311-G]

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4563 of
     1998.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.97 of the Rajasthan High D
     Court in C.W.P. No. 3455 of 1997.

             B.D. Sharma for the Appellant.

             Manoj K. Das and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondents.                  E
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.

            The appellant, who was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service
     (for short 'RJS'), is aggrieved by the judgment dated September 17, 1997        F
     of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing his writ
     petition (CWP No. 3455/97), wherein he had prayed in effect that his case
     for promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (for short 'RHJS')
     be considered from the date when the posts in the RHJS fell vacant.

           By the time the appellant filed the writ petition he had already
                                                                                     G
     superannuated on May 31, 1996. Prior to his retirement, posts in the RHJS
     were available in the promotional quota for promotion of the appellant.
     He had earlier filed writ petition (CWP No. 1544/96) in the High Court
     seeking his promotion. This earlier writ petition came up for admission
     before the High Court on May 27, 1996 and the following order was H
    310                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A passed:-
             "27.5.96 : Hon'ble Mr. M.G. Mukherji Actg. Cl. Hon'ble Mr.
                        Bhagwati Prasad J.

                Issue notice, returnable four weeks after the summer holidays.
B            Notice be given 'dasti' to the learned advocate.

                 We direct that even though the writ petitioner retires on
             31.5.96, his case is to be considered alongwith the other officers
             for the purpose of promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial
             Service, and in case such a promotion is accorded to him notionally
c            his case would be sympathetically considered with appropriate
             directions, as may be deemed fit and proper."

  That writ petition was withdrawn by the appellant on January 8, 1997.
  Liberty was, however, granted to him to file a fresh writ petition if any
D occasion arose. The order dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn is as
  under:-

             "8.1.97 :   Hon'ble Mr. M.G. Mukherji CJ.
                         Hon'ble Mr. Bhagwati Prasad J.

E                The petitioner expresses desire to withdraw the writ petition
             application with liberty to file representation in the Administrative
             forum.

                He is granted liberty to file fresh writ application if occasion
             anses.
F
                The writ application dismissed as withdrawn."

                Subsequent writ petition (CWP No. 3455/97) was dismissed in
             limine with the following order which is now impugned:-

G            "17.9.97 : HON'BLE MR. M.G. MUKHERJI, CJ.
                        HON'BLE MR. BHAGWATI PRASAD,.T.

             Mr. H.N. Calla for the petitioner.

                We are of the opinion that the present writ application is barred
H            by the principles of res judicata. The representation as submitted
     B.N.SHARMAv. RAJASfHANH.C.AT JODHPUR[D.P. WADHWA,J.]                311

        by the writ petitioner was considered by the Full Court and the         A
        Full Court in its wisdom rejected the same. It is further contended
        that the Full Court did not pass a speaking order on his repre-
        sentation. We are constrained to hold that the matter was discussed
        in the Full Court and the ultimate decision was communicated to
        the writ petitioner. We do not think that there is any force in this
        writ application. Till such time the petitioner retired none of his     B
        juniors was considered for promotion or was given promotion to
        the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. It may be a very sad state
        of affairs that he was not considered for promotion till he retired
        but that does not make out any case for interference.

            The writ application stands dismissed."                             c
      This order is being challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

      The appellant joined RJS on January 2, 1979. He was confirmed in
the post of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate by order dated December 31,          D
1980. He was promoted as Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate on February 13, 1992 and by order dated August
17, 1993 appellant was granted selection scale w.e.f. August, 1992. He
retired on May 31, 1996. After withdrawal of his writ petition (CWP No.
1544/96) the appellant represented on January 29, 1997 that his case for
promotion to RHJS be considered and he l;ie given notional promotion in         E
view of the observations made on May 27, 1996 in writ petition. This
representation did not find favour with the High Court and was rejected
by resolution of the Full Court dated July 3, 1997, which was communicated
to the appellant. This led the appellant to file the second writ petition
(CWP No. 3455/97), which as noted above, was rejected on two grounds,
namely, (1) it was barred by principle of res judicata and (2) till the         F
appellant retired from service none of his juniors was considered for
promotion or even promoted to RHJS.

       We do not think that High Court was right in holding that the second
writ petition (CWP No. 3455/97) was barred by principle of res judicata.        G
Appellant made his representations on the basis of observations made by
the High Court on May 27, 1996 in his earlier writ petition. When this writ
petition came up for hearing again, the appellant had retired. He, there-
fore, withdrew the writ petition. Liberty was granted to him to file another
writ petition, "if .occasion arises". This certainly does not mean that fresh
writ petition could be filed only if fresh cause of action arose. In any case   H
    312                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A fresh cause of action did arise when representations of the appellant were
  rejected by the High Court and his case for promotion to RHJS was not
  considered for giving him notional promotion. However, our holding that
  second writ petition was not barred by principle of res judicata does not
  help the appellant as his writ petition was also dismissed on merit. There
  is some controversy if grant of selection grade to the appellant would give
B him seniority over those officers who though senior in the seniority list of
  RJS were not granted selection grade. Admittedly seniority list was never
  under challenge. Thi~ controversy is, however, not material for our pur-
  poses inasmuch as it is not disputed that on the date when the appellant
  retired from service, posts in the promotional quota were available and the
C appellant could have been considered for promotion to RHJS in that
  quota. He was not so considered because the High Court had taken a
  decision by resolution of the Full Court dated February9, 1996 not to make
  further promotions from RJS till recruitment from the Bar to RHJS was
   made. The appellant in his first writ petition had challenged the resolution
  of the .Full Court not to make promotions to the cadre of RHJS till
D appointments from the Bar were made. This resolution of the Full Court
  he certainly could not challenge in the second writ petition. High Court in
  its counter affidavit has given justification as to why it took decision not to
  make any promotion to the cadre of RHJS though at the relevant time 21
   posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges were vacant to be filled
  in by promotion and direct recruitment in the ratio of 3:1 as per Rule 9(2)
E of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969. This is how the High
  Court justified its decision:-

             "The Full Court in its meeting held on 9.2.96 resolved that no
             promotion shall be made till direct recruitment is made. The
F            decision to this effect was taken by Full Court keeping in view the
             inequitable operation of quota 3:1 which has to be maintained
             between promotees and direct recruits to the R.HJ.S. which was
             not being done. While vacancy in the direct recruit quota were
             being determined on the basis of sanctioned strength of the cadre,
             the promotional quota was being operated on the basis of the
G            recruitment. There were 89 sanctioned posts but factually more
             than 200 officers were working on the R.HJ.S. posts. The posts in
             excess of 89 were being manned by temporary/ ad hoc promotees
             from R.HJ.S. only and therefore factually the proportion of direct
             recruits has gone down abysmally. The embargo on promotions
H            was therefore, imposed by the Full Court to stop further inequality
           B.N.SHARMAv. RAJASTIIANH.C.AT JODHPUR[D.P. WADHWA,J.)          313

             and imbalance in the proportions between the two quotas which A
             created problems in determining inter se seniority in R.H.J .S. on
             the basis of Rota-quota rule. Therefore, the Full Court took the
             decision not to promote the officers from RJ.S. cadre to R.H.J.S.
             cadre till the direct recruitment is made keeping in view the
             inequitable operation of Rota- quota rule. The resolution passed
             by the Full Court in its meeting held on 9.2.96 did not require any
                                                                                  B
             interference of his excellency the Governor. Therefore it is wrong
             to contend that the Full Court has no authority to stop the promo-
             tions byway of recruitment to the R.H.J.S. to maintain the propor-
             tional representation and inter se seniority between direct recruits
             and promotees."                                                     c
            The appellant could certainly have a grievance if any of his juniors
     had been given promotion from a date prior to his superannuation. It is
      not the case here. From the promotional quota, four promotions were
     made only on December 30, 1996 i.e., after the appellant had retired. Those D
     promoted were given promotions from the dates the orders of their promo-
     tions were issued and not from the dates the posts had fallen vacant. It is
     also the contention of the High Court that these four officers, who were
     promoted to RHJS, were senior to the appellant as per the seniority list.
     The question which falls for consideration is very harrow and that is if
     under the Rules applicable to the appellant promotion was to be given E
     to him from the date the post fell vacant or from the date when ·order
     for promotion is made. We have not been shown any rule which could
     help the appellant. No officer in RJS has been promoted to RHJS prior
     to May 31, 1996 who is junior to the appellant. Further decision by
     Rajasthan High Court has been taken to restore the imbalance between
     the direct recruits and the promotees which, of course, as noted above,
                                                                                 F
     is beyond challenge.

           In Unio11 of I11dia Ulld Others v. KKVadera a11d Others, AIR (1990)
.1   SC 442 this Court with reference to Defence Research and Development
     Service Rules, 1970, held that promotion would be effective from the date   G
     of the order and not from the date when promotional posts were created.
     Rule 8 of those Rules did not specify any date from which the promotion
     would be effective. This Court said as under:-

                "There is no statutory provision that the promotion to the post H
                                •
    314                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A            of Scientist 'B' should take effect from 1st .1 uly of the year in which
             the promotion is granted. It may be that rightly or wrongly, for
             some reason or the other, the promotions were granted from 1st
            ·July, but we do not find any justifying reason for the direction given
             by the Tribunal that the promotions of the respondents to the posts
             of Scientists 'B' should be with effect from the date of the creation
B            of these promotional posts. We do not know of any law or any rule
             under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of
             creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any
            .reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the
             date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such
c            post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are
            . created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the
             Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for
              promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are
              directed to become effective from the date of the creation of
D             additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions
              even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the
              suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances,
              it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal."

E          It is regrettable because of the inaction on the part of the High Court
    that recruitment from Bar could not be made in time which created an
    imbalance in the service and ultimately it were the appellant and officers
    similarly placed who suffered. After having put in long years of service it
    is the seniority and promotion which an officer looks forward to. He
    expects he is given due promotion in time. Non promotion may be an
F   incidence of any service. But here the appellant has been deprived of his
    promotion without any fault of his. High Court said that it might be sad
    state of affairs that the name of the appellant was not considered for
    promotion till he retired. High Court may feel anguish but it gives no
    comfort to the appellant. At least for future such an unfortunate thing
G   should not happen to any other officer similarly situated. This malaise
    which abysmally afflicts any service when there is recruitment from dif-
    ferent sources crops up in the one form or the other with great disad-
    vantage of one or the other. But then service is not constituted merely for
     the benefit of the officers in the service but with a certain purpose 'in view
     and in the present case for dispensing justice to the public at large. It is
H    not at all advisable to keep any post in judiciary vacant for days when the
     B.N. SHARMAv. RAJASTHAN H.C. AT JODHPUR [D.P. WADHWA, J.]        315

courts are burdened with arrears and litigants are the ones who suffer. We A
expect the High Courts to be vigilant and to fill up the posts in direct quota
in time and if the Bar quota cannot be filled for any reason for no fault of
the promotee officers their case for promotion should not be kept pending
till some of them even superannuate. When the process for recruitment
from Bar begins and it is expected that posts for direct quota will be filled
up soon, during the intervening period the officers in the subordinate B
service can be given ad hoc promotions without their right to daim
seniority over direct recruits, who may join later. Functioning of the courts
must not stop.

      With these observations we would dismiss the appeal and leave the     C
parties to bear their own costs.

v.s.s.                                                 Appeal dismissed.