State of Tripura Vs. Tripura Bar Association and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2552 of 1991
with Nos. 2570 and 2569 of 1991
with Nos. 2570 and 2569 of 1991
Petitioner: State of Tripura
Respondent: Tripura Bar Association and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2552 of 1991
with Nos. 2570 and 2569 of 1991
with Nos. 2570 and 2569 of 1991
Judges: S.C.AGRAWAL , S.P.BHARUCHA & M.K.MUKHERJEE , JJJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 16, 1998
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Tripura Judicial Service Rules , 1974
Rule 6(3)(b) ( As amended vide Amendment Rules of 1995 ) – Seniori-ty – Inter-se seniority – Grievance of members of Bar redressed by inserting amendment with retrospective effects – High Court , however , considering question of inter-se seniority – Said question finally settled in Durgadass Purkayastha’s case ( 1988 (1) Gau. LR.6 ) – Division Bench taking different view – Proper course indicated – Reasons for not referring to Larger Bench found not satisfactory . Held that so far as the judgment relates to inter-se seniority , it is set-aside . ( Para 4 )
Tripura Judicial Service Rules , 1974
Rule 6(3)(b) ( As amended vide Amendment Rules of 1995 ) – Seniori-ty – Inter-se seniority – Grievance of members of Bar redressed by inserting amendment with retrospective effects – High Court , however , considering question of inter-se seniority – Said question finally settled in Durgadass Purkayastha’s case ( 1988 (1) Gau. LR.6 ) – Division Bench taking different view – Proper course indicated – Reasons for not referring to Larger Bench found not satisfactory . Held that so far as the judgment relates to inter-se seniority , it is set-aside . ( Para 4 )
Cases Reffered:
1. Durgadas Purkayastha v. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court ( 1988) 1 Gau LR 6 ( Para 3 ) Relied in JT 1998 (6) SC 601
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . Respondents 6 and 7 common in all the appeals . The learned counsel representing them has made a prayer by circulating a letter for the deletion of their names . We allow the said pray-er .
2 . These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court , Agartala Bench , dated 11.4.1991 in Civil Rule No. 144 of 1986 . The said civil rule was a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Tripura Bar Association and a member of the said Bar Association . The grievance of the petitioners in that writ petition was that the proviso to Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules , 1974 which provided for reservation of 25% applicants to the posts in Grade I for direct recruitment from amongst members of the Bar was not being implemented . By notification dated 23.12.1986 Rule 6(3)(b) was amended and the provision regarding reservation for direct recruitment was deleted . By separate notification dated 21.5.1988 the amendment made by the earlier notification dated 23.12.1986 was repealed . The said amendment was , however , not made with retrospective effect . Thereafter , another notification has been issued on 18.11.1995 whereby the Judicial Service (Eighth Amendment) Rules , 1995 have been promul-gated and clause (b) has been inserted in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules and it has been given retrospective effect from 23.12.1986 . By the said amendment , the reservation of 25% posts for direct recruits from the Bar has been introduced with effect from 23.12.1986 . As a result of the aforesaid amendment which has been made in the Rules vide no-tification dated 18.11.1995 , the grievance raised by the peti-tioners in the writ petition no longer survives and has been removed .
3 . In the impugned judgment , the High Court has , however , gone into the question of inter se seniority of the Judicial Officers who were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition . The said matter of inter se seniority had earlier been considered by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha v. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court ( 1988) 1 Gau LR 6 in respect of the same officers which judgment has become final . In the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court has taken a view different from that taken in the earlier judgment in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha .
4 . We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has delivered the impugned judgment being a coordinate Bench could not have taken a view different from that taken by the earlier Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha . If the latter Bench wanted to take a view different than that taken by the earlier Bench , the proper course for them would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench . We have perused the reasons given by the learned Judges for not referring the matter to a larger Bench . We are not satisfied that the said reasons justified their deciding the matter and not referring it to the larger Bench . In the circum-stances , we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of inter se sen-iority of the Judicial Officers impleaded as respondents in the writ petition . The impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of seniority of the respondent Judicial Officers is set aside . The appeals are disposed of accordingly . No costs .
1 . Respondents 6 and 7 common in all the appeals . The learned counsel representing them has made a prayer by circulating a letter for the deletion of their names . We allow the said pray-er .
2 . These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court , Agartala Bench , dated 11.4.1991 in Civil Rule No. 144 of 1986 . The said civil rule was a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Tripura Bar Association and a member of the said Bar Association . The grievance of the petitioners in that writ petition was that the proviso to Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules , 1974 which provided for reservation of 25% applicants to the posts in Grade I for direct recruitment from amongst members of the Bar was not being implemented . By notification dated 23.12.1986 Rule 6(3)(b) was amended and the provision regarding reservation for direct recruitment was deleted . By separate notification dated 21.5.1988 the amendment made by the earlier notification dated 23.12.1986 was repealed . The said amendment was , however , not made with retrospective effect . Thereafter , another notification has been issued on 18.11.1995 whereby the Judicial Service (Eighth Amendment) Rules , 1995 have been promul-gated and clause (b) has been inserted in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules and it has been given retrospective effect from 23.12.1986 . By the said amendment , the reservation of 25% posts for direct recruits from the Bar has been introduced with effect from 23.12.1986 . As a result of the aforesaid amendment which has been made in the Rules vide no-tification dated 18.11.1995 , the grievance raised by the peti-tioners in the writ petition no longer survives and has been removed .
3 . In the impugned judgment , the High Court has , however , gone into the question of inter se seniority of the Judicial Officers who were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition . The said matter of inter se seniority had earlier been considered by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha v. Hon’ble Gauhati High Court ( 1988) 1 Gau LR 6 in respect of the same officers which judgment has become final . In the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court has taken a view different from that taken in the earlier judgment in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha .
4 . We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court which has delivered the impugned judgment being a coordinate Bench could not have taken a view different from that taken by the earlier Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Durgadas Purkayastha . If the latter Bench wanted to take a view different than that taken by the earlier Bench , the proper course for them would have been to refer the matter to a larger Bench . We have perused the reasons given by the learned Judges for not referring the matter to a larger Bench . We are not satisfied that the said reasons justified their deciding the matter and not referring it to the larger Bench . In the circum-stances , we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of inter se sen-iority of the Judicial Officers impleaded as respondents in the writ petition . The impugned judgment of the High Court insofar as it relates to the matter of seniority of the respondent Judicial Officers is set aside . The appeals are disposed of accordingly . No costs .
