NDLI: B. L. Goel Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 1953 Rules 20 and 23
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (0 of 1975)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 - Rules 20 and 23 - Appellant a promotee to post of District Judge - Government created posts of District Judges for absorption of promotees - Three direct recruits confirmed as Dlstrict Judges against these vacancies - Appellant not confirmed - Notifications declaring confirmations - Validity of.Under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1953 appointments to the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges were made by promotion from the members of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) and by direct recruitment. Rule 20 of the Rules dealing with seniority provided that seniority in each of the two classes of posts shall be determined by the date of confirmation in that class of post. Rule 23 provided that a probationer shall be confirmed in his appointment at the end of his period of probation if the Governor was satisfied that he was fit for confirmation.The appellant who was appointed as a Civil Judge in 1955, was promoted as officiating Civil and Sessions Judge in July, 1960. Respondents 3 to 5 who were direct recruits to the post of Civil and Sessions Judges joined service in May/June, 1966.For the purpose of absorbing the promoted officers the Government converted 22 temporary posts into permanent posts of Civil and Sessions Judges with effect from April 1, 1966. Three out of those posts were given to the three respondents, who were direct recruits, and they were confirmed in the posts with effect from May/June, 1968. In twelve other posts, twelve promotees were confirmed with effect from April 1, 1966. but the appellant was not so confirmed though he had been continuously officiating as a Civil and Sessions Judge since July, 1960. He was confirmed as Civil and Sessions Judge with effect from January 1, 1969. He was eventually confirmed in the post of District and Sessions Judge with effect from February I, 1973.The three respondents were later appointed as District and Sessions Judges. By a Notification dated March 19, 1975, they were confirmed in those posts with effect from July/August, 1972. The Notification dated July 22, 1977 issued by the High Court, showed the three respondents at serial Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of the list and the appellant at No. 38 and the dates of confirmation were shown as August 25. 1972 in respect of three respondents and March 18. 1973 in respect of the appellant.The High Court allowed the appellant's writ petition and quashed the Notifications dated March 19. 1975 and July 22, 1977 insofar as they related to the dates of confirmation of the appellant and the respondents. The High Court on the administrative side was directed to redetermine the dates of their confirmation as District and Sessions Judges and their inter-se seniority in accordance with Rule 20.In appeal, it was, inter alia, contended on behalf of the appellant that the 22 permanent posts having been created with effect from 1-4-1966 for permanent absorption of promotees who had been officiating prior to that date for a period of more than three years, (Respondents 3 to 5 who were not even in service on that date, could not be absorbed against any of those vacancies, and the appellant who had put in nearly six years of service in the Cadre on the date when the three respondents were appointed, could not be denied confirmation with effect from April I, 1966; that apart from greater length of service, the appellant has an excellant, unblemished record of service; and in the circumstances, the confirmation of the appellant with effect from a date later than those assigned to Respondents 3, 4 and 5 is unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Sarkaria
Neutral Citation	1978 INSC 208
Petitioner	B. L. Goel
Respondent	State Of U.p. & Ors.
SCR	[1979] 2 S.C.R. 82
Judgement Date	1978-10-17
Case Number	911

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

B. L. Goel Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ashok Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. U.p. Judicial Services Association and Ors.

P.k. Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

D.k. Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad

Sri Kant Tripathi and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jalal Uddin and Ors

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. M. Manickam and Ors.

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad – Through Registrar General Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Malik Mazhar Sult An and Anr. Vs. U.p. Public Service Commission and Ors.

B. L. Goel Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

B. L. Goel Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ashok Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. U.p. Judicial Services Association and Ors.

P.k. Dixit and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

D.k. Agarwal Vs. High Court of Judicature At Allahabad

Sri Kant Tripathi and Ors. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jalal Uddin and Ors

V.k. Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Govt. of U.p. & Anr.

The Registrar General, High Court of Madras Vs. M. Manickam and Ors.

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature At Allahabad – Through Registrar General Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Malik Mazhar Sult An and Anr. Vs. U.p. Public Service Commission and Ors.

B. L. Goel Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.