B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 561

B.S. YADAV V. STATE OF HARYANA

ISSUE:

Whether the principle of judicial independence under Article 235 restricts the Governor’s legislative authority under Article 309 in framing service rules for judicial officers?
Whether the quota rule for recruitment can constitutionally extend to confirmations and seniority, as governed by service rules?
Whether retrospective amendments to service rules violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness under Articles 14 and 16?

RULE:

Judicial independence limits the Governor’s powers to the legislative framing of general rules, leaving their application and implementation to the High Court.
The quota system is restricted to recruitment and cannot be extended to confirmation and seniority without explicit statutory authority.
Retrospective amendments to service rules must satisfy the test of reasonable nexus and must not arbitrarily prejudice any class of officers.

FACTS:

The petitioners were promoted officers of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) elevated to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service between 1967 and 1968. Respondent 3, a direct recruit from the Bar, was appointed as a District and Sessions Judge on July 7, 1970, and confirmed on July 7, 1972, after completing a two-year probation period. The petitioners, despite having longer service, were confirmed a day later, resulting in the loss of seniority.
Recruitment and service conditions for judicial officers were governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8 stipulated a 2:1 quota for promotees and direct recruits, while Rule 12 determined seniority based on confirmation dates.
After Haryana’s formation in 1966, the 1963 Rules were adopted with amendments. Haryana amended Rule 12 in 1972, prioritizing seniority based on continuous service. However, in 1977, the state reverted to a confirmation-based criterion. Punjab retrospectively amended Rule 12 in 1976, switching to continuous service as the determinant for seniority.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, administering the judicial services of both states, adopted a rotational system for confirmations.
This system delayed confirmations for promotees to maintain the 2:1 quota, often favoring direct recruits and creating disparities in seniority.
In Punjab, promoted officers faced similar issues. Direct recruits were confirmed earlier, often before completing probation, while promotees, despite officiating for years, waited for confirmation.
Cause of Action: The petitioners argued that the High Court’s rotational confirmation system and the inconsistent application of Rule 12 violated their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They claimed that delaying their confirmation to accommodate direct recruits disregarded service rules and principles of fairness.
The High Court’s rotational confirmation system led to grievances among promotees, who alleged arbitrary delays in confirmation.
In 1972, Haryana amended Rule 12 to prioritize continuous service for seniority but reverted to confirmation-based seniority in 1977. These changes caused confusion and administrative challenges.
Respondent 3’s confirmation was contested in Narendra Singh Rao v. State of Haryana. A special bench of the High Court held that the Governor had the authority to confirm judicial officers. The Supreme Court later reversed this, affirming that confirmation authority rested with the High Court under Article 235.
The retrospective amendments to Rule 12 in Punjab and Haryana created disparities in seniority determination across the states. Petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging these amendments and the High Court’s administrative practices as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s legislative authority under Article 309 to frame service rules is valid but subject to the High Court’s administrative control under Article 235. The High Court retains exclusive authority over the confirmation of judicial officers and the determination of probation completion.
The Court ruled that the quota rule under Rule 8 applies strictly to recruitment and cannot extend to confirmation or seniority. Confirmation must adhere to service rules and cannot be arbitrarily delayed to accommodate quotas or rotational systems.
The Court emphasized that seniority must be determined by continuous service in a post, irrespective of confirmation dates. Delaying confirmation for promotees to prioritize direct recruits was found to violate Articles 14 and 16, which guarantee equality in service matters.
The Court declared that the retrospective amendments to Rule 12 in Punjab and Haryana were invalid as they lacked reasonable nexus, disrupted judicial independence, and were made without proper consultation with the High Court.
The Court found the rotational system for confirmations unconstitutional, as it contradicted the judicial decisions of the High Court and undermined the principles of fairness and equality.
The Supreme Court directed a uniform application of seniority rules across Punjab and Haryana to eliminate inconsistencies, uphold fairness, and reinforce judicial independence. This decision balanced legislative authority with the High Court’s constitutional control, ensuring the equitable treatment of judicial officers.