NDLI: R. Poornima and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Recruitment
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Dismissed
Headnote	Constitution of India – Art. 217(2) – Explanation (a) and(aa) u/Art. 217(2) – The petitioners as well as the respondent nos.24 to 29 were duly selected and appointed as District Judges byway of direct recruitment in the year 2011 – The respondent nos. 5to 23 were appointed as Judicial Officers in the cadre below that ofDistrict Judges – After long service, they gained promotion to thepost of District Judges – But their promotion happened after thedate on which the petitioners were directly recruited as DistrictJudges – This is how and why the petitioners became seniors to therespondent nos. 5 to 23 – The grievance of the petitioners is thatdespite being the senior-most in the cadre of District Judges, theyhave been overlooked and their juniors now recommended forelevation to the High Court as Judges – The Collegium of the HighCourt found that the petitioners had not completed 10 years ofservice in a Judicial Office as required by Art. 217(2)(a) – Therefore,recommended the names of persons who fulfilled the eligibilitycriteria – Writ petition – Petitioners contended that the qualificationsprescribed in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (2) of Art. 217 arein the alternative, but Art. 217 does not create separate streams forappointment, with independent quotas for such streams and tointerpret Explanation (a) in such a manner that only a person whoresigned from Judicial service and became an Advocate will beeligible to club both the periods, will result in unfair and hostilediscrimination of Judicial officers, offending Art. 14 and suchinterpretation has to be avoided – Held: The clause (2) of Art. 217has two parts, the first of which is in sub-clauses (a) and (b) andthe second in Explanation (a) and (aa) – Explanation (a) goes withsub-clause (a) and Explanation (aa) goes with sub-clause(b) –According to Explanation (a), the period of service rendered by aperson in a judicial office has to be computed by taking into accountthe period during which he has been an advocate of a High Court– But the condition for such addition of some other period, underexplanation (a) is that such other period should have followed andnot preceded the judicial service – This is made clear by the use ofthe words ‘after he has held any judicial office’ – However, what issought by the petitioners herein is to club with their judicial service,the experience that they had at the Bar before joining Judicial service– The petitioners want the word ‘after’ to be interpreted to meanand include ‘before’ – This is not permissible – Further, the Art.217(2) merely prescribes the eligibility criteria and method ofcomputation – There are two separate queues, one from judicialservice and another from the Bar – The queue to which a person isassigned, depends upon his status (either as an advocate or judicialofficer) on the date of consideration – Hopping on and hoppingoff from one queue to other, is not permissible – As far as contentionregarding Art.14 is concerned, there is no violation of Art. 14, asArt. 217(2) does not guarantee anyone with the right to be appointedas a Judge of the High Court – Therefore, the claim of the writpetitioners is wholly untenable – Consequently, the writ petition isdismissed.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 534
Petitioner	R. Poornima And Ors.
Respondent	Union Of India And Ors.
SCR	[2020] 8 S.C.R. 89
Judgement Date	2020-09-05
Case Number	1172

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

R. Poornima and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ganga Malik Vs. Union of India and Ors.

R. Viswan & Others Vs. Union of India & Others

S. K. Ghosh and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Durgadaspurkyastha Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

S. K. Bhate & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Supreet Batra and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors.

K.l. Rathee Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Rahul Dutta & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

R. Poornima and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

R. Poornima and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ganga Malik Vs. Union of India and Ors.

R. Viswan & Others Vs. Union of India & Others

S. K. Ghosh and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Durgadaspurkyastha Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

S. K. Bhate & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Supreet Batra and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors.

K.l. Rathee Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Rahul Dutta & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

R. Poornima and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.