Marks for ACRs, judgments not required for promotion as ADJ: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed criteria added to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, providing for allocation of marks for Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and judgments of judicial officers while assessing their suitability for promotion as Additional District Judges..The judgment was passed by a Bench of Justices AB Chaudhari and Kuldip Singh in a petition filed by a number of Additional District and Sessions Judges of courts across Haryana..By way of background, the Supreme Court in 2001 laid down certain criteria for direct recruitment to the higher judicial services. As per the judgment, the selection process was to take place in the following manner:.(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum seniority and passing a suitability test.(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service and.(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted through respective High Courts..Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 were promulgated. Rule 6 provided for the above-mentioned division of posts..For the purpose of assessing and testing the merit and the suitability amongst Civil Judges (Senior Division), certain criteria were put forth in Rule 8. These include the ACRs of the judges for the preceding five years, inspection reports, judgments of the judicial officer over the last three years, and marks obtained in the objective test and the viva voce..The criteria were then amended vide the Haryana Superior Judicial Services (Amendment) Rules, 2012. As per these Rules,.“i) A candidate is required to obtain at least 40% marks in aggregate in the suitability test consisting of written test and viva voce of 20 marks each to be considered eligible for promotion..ii) After a candidate has passed the suitability test, his/her merit shall be determined in the following mannera) 15 marks are allocated for Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding 5 years in the following manner.A+ Outstanding 03.0 marks.A Very Good 02.5 marks.B+ Good 02.0 marks.B Satisfactory 01 marks.C 0 marks.b) 15 marks in all have been allocated for the 6 best judgments (3 Civil and 3 Criminal that is one each of every year) of the last years to be supplied by the Officer.c) Award one mark for every completed year of service by the officer but the maximum marks for the completed years of service shall not exceed twenty…”.Using these criteria as a gauge, a merit-wise list of candidates was prepared. Out of 46 applicants, only 23 were selected. 22 of the 23 selected were impleaded as respondents in this case. It was found that some of the respondents who were promoted were not senior to the petitioners in the seniority list of Haryana Civil Services Judicial Officers. A number of officers, including the petitioners, were superseded..Therefore, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court in 2012. The petition was eventually dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty given to the petitioners to take their case to the Punjab & Haryana High Court..The chief gripe of the petitioners was the allocation of marks to ACRs for preceding five years and to ‘best judgments’. Represented by Senior Advocate DS Patwalia, they contended that these criteria are not part of Superior Judicial Service Rules of 2007, and that they were subjective in nature..The High Court agreed with this contention, ruling,.“We are of the view that criteria of allocating marks for the ACRs is unjust and contrary to Rule 8 of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. Rule 8 of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, provides for taking into consideration the ACRs and judgments. It does not provide for allocating marks to ACRs and the judgments of officers.”.The Bench further held that allocating higher marks to ACRs that were graded higher resulted in discrimination..“As all individuals have different nature, way of working and manner of assessment, therefore, the different Administrative Judges may grant different grading to different Judicial Officers for the same work. In this process, some of the Judicial Officers may get comparatively good reports than other Judicial Officers, who are equally or more competent.”.As far as allocating marks to judgments were concerned, the Bench held,.“Judging the quality of judgments is always subjective. Therefore, the assessment made by Administrative Judge for a particular year may be different from the assessment, which was to be made by the Committee. Again here, a benchmark was sufficient to see whether the judgments are good and the Judicial Officer is suitable for promotion to the higher post.”.The Bench further pointed out that the Rules were once again amended in 2013. These new rules called for a written objective test of 75 marks and viva voce of 25 marks. A 50% aggregate was required in order to be suitable for promotion. More importantly, the allocation of marks for ACRs and judgments was done away with..This led the Court to hold that the Rules, insofar as granting of marks for ACRs and best judgments are concerned, are arbitrary and liable to be quashed..The Court also observed that some of the respondents who are otherwise junior to petitioners in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), having been appointed earlier in time on account of their falling in first 23 candidates in merit list, were made senior to them. This, the Court held, was beyond the intention of the Supreme Court judgment..Therefore, the Court passed a direction to adjust the date of promotion of the petitioners and the respondents, and to grant seniority to the petitioners as per their seniority in Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts..Read the judgment: