Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
|
Supreme Court rules that the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services Rules 2017 have no retroactive effect. The roster for the 2017 Rules may only be produced and maintained once the Rules go into effect, according to a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose. The Supreme Court ruled that the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 cannot be applied retroactively (Anand Kumar Tiwari vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh). The roster for the 2017 Rules, according to a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, may only be created and maintained after the Rules go into effect.
As a result, the petitioners' major point of contention was the order dated October 27, 2015, which published a seniority list that placed petitioners behind District Judges who were elevated through LCE in 2009. According to the judgment in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, 25% of the jobs of Higher Judicial Services District Judges and Additional District Judges must be filled by direct recruitment through competitive tests, with the remaining 75% being filled through promotion. Furthermore, it was decided that of the 75 percent quota for promotees, 50 percent would be filled by merit-cum seniority promotion and 25% would be filled by promotion directly on merit through a departmental LCE for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) would not be less than 5 years. It was claimed that the delay should not harm directly recruited judges, and that their seniority should be recalculated based on the roaster as a result of the 2017 Rules' retrospective impact. Due to the pendency of a special leave plea (SLP) before the highest court pertaining to the subject of District Judge seniority, the modification was postponed despite multiple sessions of the entire Court, according to counsel for the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court, however, dismissed the High Court's argument, observing that the subject matter of the SLP referenced by the respondents was not the same as the current issue. The Court, on the other hand, declined to give the 2017 Rules retrospective effect, stating that the roster may only be produced and maintained after the Rules go into force. The Court decided that petitioners could not argue that their seniority should be revised based on a list, as the Supreme Court had ordered in the All India Judges' Association case.
Tags : #SUPREME COURT #SUPREME COURT OF INDIA #SC #MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT 3DISTRICT JUDICIARY #MADHYA PRADESH HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICES RULE 2017
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.