Holding

Seniority of judicial officers is to be fixed on the date of confirmation, not the date of joining, and the challenge to Rules 10(2) and 12 is dismissed.

Summary

Ishwar Chand Jain, a direct‑recruit Additional District & Sessions Judge appointed on 2‑May‑1983, was terminated after an extended probation but later reinstated and confirmed by the Supreme Court with effect from 2‑May‑1985. The High Court later fixed his seniority based on a 1990 notification that used the date of confirmation, which Jain challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that seniority should be based on his date of joining (2‑May‑1983) and sought to declare Rules 10(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 unconstitutional. The Court held that seniority is determined by the date of confirmation, not the date of joining, and that the issue had already been decided, precluding re‑litigation. It further observed that the petitioner’s continued litigation amounted to an abuse of process and was contrary to judicial ethics. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs. The Court declined to examine the constitutional validity of the rules, as the relief sought was already granted by earlier orders.

Issues considered

The appropriate basis for fixing seniority of judicial officers – date of joining versus date of confirmation.
Whether Rules 10(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the petition is barred by res judicata or the doctrine of constructive res judicata.
Whether the petitioner’s continued litigation constitutes an abuse of process.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16

Subjects

service lawseniority fixationjudicial confirmationArticle 14Article 16res judicatajudicial ethicsprobation periodPunjab Superior Judicial Service RulesArticle 32 writ

Judgment

A ISHWAR CHAND JAIN
v.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS.
+-
JANUARY 10, 2001

B [G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.)

Service law:

Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963: Rules 10(2) and 12.
c Judicial service-Seniority-Fixation of-Date of joining or date of
confirmation-Judicial Officer appointed on 2-5-1983 as a direct recruit on
probation for a period of two years-However, his services were terminated
after expiry of extended probation-Supreme Court set aside the order of
termination-His services confirmed w.e.f 2-5-1986-Supreme Court directed
D his confirmation to be w.e.f 2-5-1985-According(v, date of confirmation of
Judicial Officers revised and re-fixed-Validity of-Held: It is not the date of
joining which has to be taken note of but date of confirmation-Hence,
seniority is to be fixed w.e.f date of confirmation i.e., 2-5-1985 and not date
of joining i.e., 2-5-1983-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16.
E Judicial Ethics:

Fanciful litigation-Indulgence of-Judicial Officer spent a lq(,g period
more in law courts in ventilating his personal grievance rather than redressing
the grievances of the litigating public-Propriety of-Held: Judiciary is one
F of the organs of the State and owes constitutional responsibility-There may .,._
be some grievances about service conditions but this does not authorise a
Judicial Officer to indulge in fanciful litigation.

The petitioner joined the service on 2-5-1983 as a direct recruit
Additional District & Sessions Judge in judicial service on probation for a
G period of 2 years. The petitioner's services were terminated after the expiry
of the extended period of probation. This Court set aside the order of
termination. But the High Court confirmed the petitioner's services w.e.f.
2-5-1986. However, this Court directed confirmation of the petitioner w.e.f.
2-5-1985 and the same was duly complied with. Subsequently, the dates of
H confirmation of District/Additional District and Sessions Judges were revised
306
l.C. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 307
and re-fixed. A
The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the validity
of Rules 10(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963
on the ground that the Rules violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India, 1950.
B
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that his seniority should
'i< be w.e.f. 2-5-1983 i.e., the date of his joining the service and not w.e.f. 2-
5-1985 i.e., the date of his confirmation.

Dismissing the petition, the Court

HELD : 1. It is not the date of joining which ought to be taken note of C
but the date of co.nfirmation, and in any event since the issue has been dealt
• _\.- with by this Court once before, the question of reopening of the same would
not arise. Hence, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner.
(315-G; 316-A)
D
B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana. AIR (1981 ( SC 561 and L Chandra

- Kishore Singh v. State of Manipur, (19991 8 SCC 287, referred to.

cited.
G.P. Doyal v. ,ChiefSecretary, Government ofU.P., 1198414 SCC 329,

2. Significantly, the petitioner's rank and file has been determined by E
this Court at his own instance and having gained the desired objective, the
litigations sprit should have died down or be at its lowest ebb at least, but
the spirit continued unabated and undaunted and resultantly the instant
proceeding is a total abuse of the process of court. The Petitioner has been
able to redress his grievances and even after obtaining the fullest benefit, F
the demand still remains to be insatiable which runs counter to all known
principles of judicial ethics. (317-B-Cf

3. Judiciary is one of the three organs of the State and owes
constitutional responsibility. Responsiveness to the needs of a litigant to
have the matter disposed of expeditiously cannot be decried in any way and G
-- ..l in any event is the need of the day. The petitioner has been in the judicial
service since 1983 and a long period of seventeen years has been spent more
in the law courts in ventilating his personal grievance rather than redressing
the grievances of the litigant public. Judiciary owes a duty to the public at
large and one need not take the extreme recourse unless placed against a
wall. There might be some grievances here and there or some dissatisfaction H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A about ser\'ice conditions but that will not otherwise authorise a judicial
officer to indulge in fanciful litigations. 317-D-E-Fl
..,.. ....
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 516 of
1992.

B (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

lshwar Chand Jain-in-Person, Jinendra Jain, Ajay Jain, Uday Kumar and "t-
Rajiv Dutta for the petitioner.

Mahabir Singh and Sadhna Ramachandran for the Respondents.
c
K.K. Gupta, (N.P.) for the Respondent No. 4.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -J_ -

BANERJEE, J. Judicial precedents are available in large numbers in
D regard to the irksome issue of inter-se seniority between the direct recruits
and promotees. One direct recruit judicial officer, said to be aggrieved by the
issuance of a Notification dated 13th December, 1990 in the matter of revision
and refixation of the dates of confirmation of Districts/Additional District and
Session Judges in Haryana Superior Judicial Service has brought this matter
... ...
before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
E
On an analysis of the factual details, it can undoubtedly be said tha,
the matter itself has a chequered career. The appellant joined the service on
2nd May, 1983 as a direct recruit Additional District & Sessions Judge in
Judicial Service on probation for a period of 2 years. The contextual facts
F depict that shortly after joining the post and during the probationary period,
.....
the petitioner's services were terminated and in accordance with the existing
Rules, the recommendation for such termination was duly sent to the State
Government. but the State Government in its turn however requested for a
further probationary period of one year. Subsequently however, upon the
expiry of the extended period the petitioner's services were terminated and it
G
is against the termination order, that the petitioner moved this Court under ).. "'!
Article 32 of the Constitution. By an order dated 26.5.1988 this Court however
did set aside the order of termination and a direction was issued for
reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service together with all
arrears of salary, allowances and other benefits and in terms therewith
H petitioner's service was confirmed with effect from 2nd May, 1986. Subsequent
J.C. JAIN v. lllGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND l-IARY ANA [BANERJEE. J.] 309
to the placement of the petitioner as above (i.e., to say from 2.5.1986), the A
petitioner however, moved an interlocutory application in the Civil Appeal No.
811 of 1988 and this Court on 11th September, 1990 passed an order to the
effect that the petitioner's entitlement for confirmation from 2nd May, 1985
cannot be doubted and the High Court was riot right in confirming the
petitioner with effect from 2nd May, I 986 and it is on this perspective a further B
direction was issued by this Court for confirmation of the petitioner with
effect from 2nd May, 1985 within two months and the same was duly complied
with recording the confirmation as directed.

The petitioner however moved once again this Court, under Article 32
which is presently under consideration inter a/ia for issuance of a Writ of C
Certiorari for quashing the order or notification dated 13.12.1990 regarding the
placement of the petitioner in the seniority list. Incidentally, it is convenient
to note at this juncture that the petitioner has been placed at SL No. 27 in
the seniority list. It is also convenient to note that whereas the petitioner
claims placement immediately after SI. No~l 8 i.e., Shri Krishan Kant in the
pleadings before this Court but there is slight shift in the stand during the D
course of hearing since the petitioner (appearing in person) contended that
as a matter of fact, the placement should have been immediately after Shri
M.K. Bansal at SL No. 19 and before Shri A.S. Garg who is placed at SI. No.
20.
E
The second Writ Petition presently under consideration also contain
two other prayers - the first being for issuance of a proper writ striking down
Rule IO (2) regarding the date of confirmation of direct recruits and portion
of Rule 12 regarding fixation of seniority on the date of confirmation as being

- violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and secondly for issuance
of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. I to refix the seniority F
of the petitioner in accordance with the rules after giving same interpretation
which had been given for the petitioners and respondents in the case of H.L.
Randev & Ors. and for appropriate placement of the petitioner being senior
to Respondent Nos. 3 to 9 with all consequential benefits. As noticed above
the petitioner during the course of hearing withdrew the names of Respondent G
No. 3 Shri M.K. Bansal as also Respondent No. 9 Shri B.L. Gulati and prayed
for striking off the same from the Cause Title of the petition and in terms
therewith this Court directed withdrawal of the names as prayed for by the
petitioner. The principal grievance thus pertains to placement of Respondent
Nos. 4 to 8. It will not be out of context to note that Respondent Nos. 4 to
8 have all retired from the Judicial Service and the petitioner himself is to retire H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A shortly.
Before proceeding with the matter further, a look at the prayers of the
Interlocutory Application in the earlier disposed of appeal noted above would
be convenient at this juncture:

B "(a) to fully implement the judgment passed in Civil appeal No. 811
of 1988 decided on 26.5.1988. ·
(b) to confirm the petitioner Ishwar Chand Jain at least with effect
from 2.5.1985 and to fix the seniority accordingly.
(c) to revise the A.C.R. for the year 1984-85 suitably i.e., from 'C'
c (unsatisfactory) to 'B' plus (Good) in the light of the judgment
of this Hon'ble Court.
(d) to pass such other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
'·
D It is in regard to the prayer (b) that Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Advocate
appearing for the Respondents contended as a preliminary issue for
consideration that since the petitioner has prayed for fixation of seniority in
earlier Interlocutory Application, question of further fixation would not arise
and the present application is barred under the doctrine of res judicata or
E constructive res judicata or principles analogous thereto. We are, however,
not impressed with the preliminary objection of the learned Advocate since
the seniority list under challenge in the petition is of I 3th December, 1990 and
the earlier petition was filed on 7th July, I 990 and the order thereon was
passed on l lth September, I 990. In the premises, question of the challenge
being barred by the doctrine of res judicata or constructive res judicata or """
F under any principles analogous thereto does not and cannot arise and as
such the preliminary objection of Mr. Mahabir Singh fails.

Turning attention on to the merits of the matter, be it noted that prior
to the completion of the probationary period the rules stood amended and Mr.
G Mahabir Singh, Advocate for the Respondents contended that it is the earlier
rule which ought to be treated as the governing rule in the matter of placement
oftl1e petitioner in the seniority list and it is on this score, the petitioner while
conceding the factum of the earlier rule being the governing rule, contended
that Rule I 0(2) and a portion of Rule 12 however ought to be declared as
invalid since the same is violative of Articles 14 and I6. Rule I 0 (2) and Rule
H 12 as the Rules then stood and before amendment read as below:
J.C. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJA.BAND HARYANA [BANERJEE, J.] 311

"Rule IO. Probation (I) .... A
(2) On the completion of period of probation the Governor may, in
consultation with the High Court confirm a direct recruit on a cadre
post with effect from a date not earlier than the date on which he
completes the period of probation.
B
12. Seniority:- The Seniority-inter-se of the substantive members of
the service, whether direct recruits or promotee officers, shall be
determined with the reference to the respective dates of their
confirmation:
(Emphasis supplied)

Provided that the seniority, inter-se of substantive members of the
c
Service having the same date of confirmation shall be determined as
follows:-

(i) in the case of direct recruits, the older in age shall be senior to
the younger; D
(ii) in the case of promotee officers, in accordance with the seniority
in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as it stood
immediately before their confirmation;

(iii) in the case of promotee officers and direct recruits, the older in
age shall be senior to the younger". E
The validity of Rule 10(2) also that of emphasised portion of Rule 12
as above, are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

In order however to appreciate the submissions made by the parties and
for effective adjudication of the disputes between the parties it would be F
convenient to note Rules 2. I, 2.2 and 2.6 at this juncture and the same read
as below:

"Rule 2.1 Appointment to the Service means an appointment to a
cadre post, whether on permanent, temporary or officiating basis or
on probation. G
Rule 2.2 'Cadre post' means a permanent post in the service.·

Rule 2.6 'Member of the service' means a person:

(a) who, immediately before the commencement of these rules, holds
a cadre post, whether on permanent, temporary or officiating H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I) I S.C.R.

A basis, or on probation or
(b) who is appointed to a cadre post in accordance with the
provisions of these rules";

These rules, however, stood amended as noticed above and excepting
B the amendment to Rule 2.2 there is not much of a change introduced by the
amendment to the rules since the amendments pertain to the alteration of
number from earlier Rule 2.6 to present 2.5. Definition of 'Cadre post' in terms
of Rule 2.2 however has undergone a substantive change: whereas in the
earlier rule 'Cadre post' meant a permanent post in the service, under the new
and existing Rule. 'Cadre post' means a post whether permanent or temporary
C in the service as regards seniority in terms of Rule 12. The amendment seems
to be rather drastic in the sense that whereas the earlier Rule 12 specifically
provided, that the seniority-inter-se would be dependant upon reference to
the respective dates of their confirmation for both direct recruits and
promotee officers, the amendment introcluced the length of continuous service
instead of dates of confirmation.
D (Emphasis supplied)

Turning on to the issue of the validity of the rules, it has been contended
by the petitioner that the portion of Rule 12 of the Rules, which makes the
seniority dependant on the date of the confirmation, is liable to be quashed
E being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner
contended that his entitlement for assigning of seniority should be next to
Shri Krishan Kant Agarwal as the other respondents being respondent Nos.3
to 8 were not members of the cadre on the date of joining the service by
the petitioner i.e., on 2.5.83 while under the Notifications Nos. 606 and 607
dated 13.12.1990 confirmation of the petitioner with effect from 2.5.85 and
F fixation of his seniority next to Shri R.D. Aneja and Ors. cannot but be
ascribed to be illegal and void being contrary to the Punjab Superior Judicial
Service Rules (as applicable to Haryana on 2.5.83) and in fact runs contrary
to the directions issued by this Court in the Interlocutory Application No. I A
in CA No. 811/88. The petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to
G be confirmed with effect from 2.5.83 and have his seniority fixed next to
Shri KK Agarwal and the seniority has to be assigned on the date of promotion/
date of joining service since the appointment of the petitioner was on a
vacant post on 2.5.83 and in the cadre having a total strength of27 candidates
and having regard to the ratio between the direct recruits and promotees, the
former were entitled to 9 posts whereas promotees were entitled to 18 posts
H and since respondent Nos. 3 to 8 do not come within those 18 promotee
l.C. JAIN v. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [BANERJEE. J.] 313
officers and Shri KK Agarwal being placed at Item No.1.8 in the list of A
~ promotee officers there exists no manner of doubt as to the place1;nent of the
petitioner before respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as promotee officers. Mr. Mahabir
Singh on the other hand contended that at the time of appointment of the
petitioner along with two others in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service
there were 27 permanent posts in the cadre. According to Rule 8(2) of the
Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (as applicable to the State of
B
Haryana) in force on the relevant date, the number of posts to be manned by
'I- the direct recruits were nine. There were only 6 direct recruits in the service
they being (I) Sh. N.S. Rao, (2) Sh. SK Jain, (3) Sh. R.K. Nehru (4) Shri
Surinder Sarup (5) Sh. B.L. Gulati and (6) Sh. V.M. Jain. At the time of
appointment of the petitioner along with two others in the Haryana Superior c
Judicial Service, only 24 officers ( 18 promotees and 6 direct recruits) were
working against the permanent 27 cadre posts meaning thereby that 3
... ~ permanent posts were lying vacant. It may also be stated that prior to the
amendment made in Rules 2(2) and 12 of the Punjab Superior Judicial
Service Rules, 1963 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) with effect from
19.3.1984 only permanent posts were treated as cadre posts and seniority of D
members of Haryana Superior Judicial Service was to be determined with
reference to the respective dates of confirmation .

..... Incidentally, factors relating to confirmation in service of the officers of
the Haryana Superior Judicial Service stand settled by the decision of this
E
Court in B.S. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1981) SC
561 and the directions for confirmation in service of the officers as contained
therein are summarised as below:

... .... (i) A member of the service who had been appointed thereto by
promotion would if he was otherwise fit for confirmation, was to F
be confirmed with effect from the date on which vacancy became
available in the quota of promotees:

(ii) a direct recruit could not be confirmed against a post available
in the quota of direct recruits from a date earlier to the date on
which he had satisfactorily completed his period of probation of G
two years.
-"
Incidentally, according to the instructions contained in Haryana
Government letter No. 68 J 7-2GSl-76/28957 dated 29. 10.1976 the policy of the
State Government has been that the temporary posts which have been in
existence in the permanent departments for five years or more and the work H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 1 S.C.R.

A of which is of a continuous nature, would be made permanent by the
Administration Department after obtaining formal concurrence of the Finance -r
Department.
On the wake of the observations and the directions of the Constitution
Bench in Yadav's case (supra) Sh. J.C. Jain, the petitioner having joined
B Haryana Superior Judicial Service on 2.5.1983, could not be confirmed earlier
to 2.5.1985 i.e., on completion of two years period of probation. It may also
be stated that the Haryana Government vide their letter dated 24.12.1981
converted one post of District & Sessions Judge with effect from 24.12.1981
into cadre (permanent) post thereby revising the cadre strength from 18 to 19
of permanent posts. Against this post, Sh. R.K. Gupta (since retired) was
C confirmed. Similarly the Haryana Government vide their letter dated 1.6.1982
converted 8 temporary posts into permanent raising the cadre posts in the
service from 19 to 27. Out of these 8 permanent posts, 3 posts were kept
vacant for direct recruits to complete their quota and against 5 remaining
posts S/Sh. O.P. Gupta (since retired), R.C. Jain (since expired), I.P. Vasishth,
D N.K. Jain and O.P. Gupta-II were confirmed with effect from 1.6.1982 as the
records depict. In the meantime Sh. B.S. Yadav, Sh. O.P.Gupta and Sh. K.L.
Wason retired from Haryana Superior Judicial Seivice with effect from 31.7.1982,
31.12.1982 and 31.5.1983 respectively and against these posts S/Sh. Krishan
Kant, M.K. Bansal and A.S. Garg were confirmed. The Haryana Government
vide their letter dated 10.11.1988 converted 1 temporary post of Joint Legal
E Remembrancer into permanent one with effect from 1.6.1983 and Sh. M.S.
Nagra, was confirmed against this post. The Haryana Government vide their
letter dated 14.1 I .1983 converted 3 temporary posts into permanent raising the
cadre posts in the service from 28 to 31. Out of these 3 permanent posts, I
post was kept vacant for direct recruits to complete their quota and against
F 2 remaining posts S/Shri S.B. Ahuja and Gorakh Nath were confirmed with
effect from 14.11.1983. One permanent post in the cadre ofpromotee officers
became available on the untimely death of Sh. V.K. Jain (I) on 22.11.1983 and
against this permanent post Shr. R.D. Aneja was c<?nfirmed with effect from
22.11.1983. The petitioner Shri l.C. Jain was confirmed on 2.5.1985 i.e., on
completion of two years' period of probation against one of the permanent
G posts lying in the quota of direct recruits with effect from 14.11.1983 in
accordance with the guidelines of this Court, referred to above. Thus, the
petitioner had been given confirmation on the due date.
Incidentally be it noticed that the petitioner on 7th July, 1990 moved this ·
Court as and by way of an Interlocutory Application in a disposed of matter
H being Civil Appeal No. 811 of 1988 decided on 26.5.1988 for an order to
1.C. JAIN v. lllGH COURT Of. PUNJAB AND I-IARY ANA [BANERJEE, J.] 315
confirm the petitioner at least with effect from 2.5.1985 and to fix the 'seniority A
~ accordingly. The other prayers are not being taken note of by reason of the
fact that the same are not relevant for the present purpose. In that Interlocutory
Application, however and for the prayer as noted above, this Court observed
having regard to the earlier decision as below:

"In view of the above observation there was no adverse entry against B
the petitioner for the year 1984-85. The petitioner was in normal
course entitled to confirmation with effect from 2.5.1985 as no adverse
material was there against the petitioner's work or conduct But the
High Court has confirmed the petitioner with effect from 2.5.19.86 on
the premise that the probationary period was extended. No order of C
the High Court extending probation has been placed before us. Since
the initial period of two years' probationary period had been completed
the petitioner is entitled to be confirmed with effect from 2.5.1985. The
High Court was not ~ight in confirming the petitioner w.e.f. 2.5.1986.
We accordingly, direct the High Court to consider the appellant's case
for his confirmation w.e.f. 2.5.1985 within two months and if necessary D
it may hear the officers (on administration side) who may be affected
by such decision. The application is accordingly disposed of"

The confirmation thus stands effective from 2nd May, 1985 and not 2nd
May, 1986 as was offered.
E
It is in terms of this order that a Notification dated 13th December, 1990
was published recording the placement of the officers and as per the date of
the confirmation being 2.5. 1985 as directed by this Court, the Petitioner was
placed at item No. 27, i.e., immediately after Shri Gorakhnath and Shri Aneja
• but before Shri M.C. Agrawal. S/Shri Gorakhnath and Aneja having been F
confirmed on 14.11.1983 and 27.11.1983 respectively, cannot, but be treated as
senior. This Court has already dealt with the issue and it is on the basis of
the directions contained therein that the gradation list has been prepared and
we see no reason to interfere with the same. The contention of placement
immediately after Sh. Krishan Kant at No.19 and before Shri M.K. Bansal or G
Sh. AS Garg in our view does not and cannot arise in the contextual facts
having regard to the decision of this Court as noticed above. It is not the date
of joining which ought to be taken note of but date of confirmation and in
any event since the issue has been dealt with by this Court once before,
question of reopening of the same would not arise. It is on this score,
however, that Mr. Mahabir Singh contended that the same is barred by the H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A doctrine of res-judicata: whereas it can not be said to be strictly within the
ambit of the doctrine but no further relief can be granted to the petitioner by r
reason of the finding of this Court in the absence of which, the decision of
this court in Chandra Kishore Singh's case L. Chandra Kishore Singh v.
State of Manipur: [1999] 8 SCC 287 could have had some application, wherein
B this Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Report (page 303), observed as
below:-

"14. Seniority itself based upon length of service is an acquired right
of an employee which entitles him to be considered for further
promotion. It is generally regulated by service rules. Such rules
normally provide for determined seniority with reference to the date
c of appointment to the class, category and grade to which the
appointment is made. It is determined only on the basis of the length
of service. Such length of service may be on the basis of the difference
of continuous officiation or on the basis of the difference of continuous
officiation or on the basis of the difference of substantive appointment
D in the cadre or grade or service which may be reckoned from the date,
of confirmation on the basis of regularisation.
15. It is now well settled that even in cases of probation or officiating
appointments which are followed by a confirmation unless a contrary
rule is shown, the service rendered as officiating appointment or on
E probation cannot be ignored for reckoning the length of continuous
officiating service for determining the place in the seniority list. Where
the first appointment is made by not following the prescribed procedure
and such appointee is approved later on, the approval would mean his
confirmation by the authority and shall relate back to the date on
which his appointment was made and the entire service will have to
F be computed in reckoning the seniority according to the length of
continuous officiation. In this regard we fortify our view by the
judgment of the Court in G.P. Doval v. Chief Secretary, Government
ofU.P., [1984] 4 SCC 329''.
The probationary period in the matter under consideration however
G cannot be considered by reason of the settlement of the issue as above and
also the factum of a contra service rule. }..
Incidentally be it noted that the original two year probationary period
was extended by the State Government for one year more, by reason wherefor,
this Court on a petition under Article 32 by the Petitioner redressed the
H grievance by recording that substantive placement of the Petitioner ought to
l.C. JAIN''- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [BANERJEE, J.] 317

- be from 2,5, 1985 and by reason of the finding and observation of this Court A

"" as regards substantive appointment neither any continuous officiation nor
any probationary period can be considered to ascribe seniority to the petitioner
herein, The direction to the High Court by this Court to consider the appellant's
case for confirmation with effect from 2,5, 1985 answers all the queries raised
in the matter, as such we need not even delve into the validity of the rules
as raised by the petitioner herein and thus would leave the questions open, B
y Significantly, petitioner's rank and file has been detennined by this Court at
his own instance and having gained the desired objective, we should have
thought that the litigatious spirit would die down or be at its lowest ebb at
least but unfortunately and we say so since we feel it expedient to record that
the spirit continued unabated and· undaunted and resultantly the instant c
proceeding, which is, to put it very mildly, a total abuse of the process of
-+ court. The petitioner herein, has been able to persuade this Court in the earlier
~
matter to redress his grievances and even after obtaining the fullest benefit,
the demand still remains to be insatiable, which in our view runs counter to
all known principles of judicial ethics.
D
Before we part with the judgment and record our conclusion in the
matter we would wish to highlight on·e aspect of the matter which needs to
~
be considered with care and caution so far as the judicial officers are concerned.
'Judiciary is one of the three organs of the State and owes constitutional
responsibility. Responsiveness to the needs of a litigant to have the matter
E
disposed of expeditiously cannot be decried in any way and in any event is
the need of the day. The petitioner herein has been in the judicial se.rvice
since 1983 (if that date had to ibe taken note of) and a long period of
seventeen years has been spent more in the law courts in ventilating the
.... personal grievance rather than redressing the grievances of the litigant public .
All of us owe a duty to the public at large and one need not take the extreme F
recourse unless placed against a wall. There might be some grievances here
and there or some dissatisfaction about service conditions but that will not
othe~ise authorise a judicial officer to indulge in fanciful litigations'.

With these observations we do feel it inclined to record our opinion in
the matter to the effect that the writ petition has no merit and as such the G
..- same stands dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 2000 to be paid to the Legal
Aid Committee of this Court.

V.S.S. Petition dismissed.

'