New Delhi: A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Condition of Services) Rules, 2017.
The plea has been filed by an Additional District Judge from Madhya Pradesh through advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey and has challenged the 100-point roster for deciding seniority of officers, prospectively under Rule 11.
According to the petitioner the Supreme Court, in its judgement in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002), had not only prescribed a 40-point cadre base roster system, but also laid down binding directions to be followed. The authorities, however, have still not incorporated the apex court’s directions.
The plea has called the delay in incorporation of the rule regarding roster, arbitrary and unjustified that has infringed the valuable rights of the petitioner as well as other persons who were appointed directly from the bar as District Judges.
The plea submitted that after coming into force of the new rule the protest petition of the petitioner which was pending since last 12 years was rejected on the ground that petitioner is claiming seniority from the date when he was not in the service. It was also mentioned that ‘Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules 2017’ came into force with effect from March 13, 2018 which provides specific provisions for roster system in determining seniority of officers appointed to Higher Judicial Service and these rules are applicable from the date of their publication in the official gazette, therefore no benefit can be given to the petitioner with regard to roster system as it could only operate prospectively.
Read Also: SC expunges all its adverse comments against lawyer, made during Aug 25 hearing
The plea states that the petitioner is aggrieved by the belated rejection of his representations by which he never claimed seniority from back date, but simply claimed seniority on the basis of roster as per direction of the Supreme Court, and the effective date of new rule is in utter violation of the direction of the apex court.
-India Legal Bureau