KERALA MAGISTRATES (JUDICIAL) ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 222

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment text

KERALAMAGISTRATES (JUDICIAL) ASSOCIATION AND ORS. v. STATE OF KERALAAND ORS. +- MARCH I, 2001 [G. B. PATTANAIK AND B. N. AGRAWAL, JJ. ] Service Law : Integration-Scheme for integrating nvo cadres-Executive decision- Inteiference-When-Held, no scheme of amalgamation can be fool proof- Some individuals might su,ffer loss which is usual consequence ofany integration p1vcess-Cou11 cannot substitute its wisdom ivith that of Government except to prevent arbi! rariness, i1rationality, perversity andmalafides-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 14. Kera/a Judicial Service Rules, 1991-Rule 4(3)-lntegration of Civil and Criminal Judicial Service-Ratio. fordetennination ofinter-se-seniority in integrated cadre-Validity-Held, all relevant and germane factors taken into consideration while determining ratio-Underthefacts, sub-rnle (4) ofRule 3 cannot be termed to be arbitrary or discriminatory in. spite of loss to some individuals-Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Artic/es 14, 234 and 235.

The State of Kerala prior to 1991 consisted of Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service in the lower judiciary and their service conditions were governed by different Rules. Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991, were made under Articles 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India providing for a common service called the Kerala Judicial Service by integrating members of the Civil Judicial Service and Criminal Judicial Service. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provided that a ratio of 3:1 should be maintained for drawing up of gradation list for integrated cadre between Subordinate Judges belonging to Civil side and Chief Judicial Magistrates belonging to criminal side and similarly, a ratio of 5:2 between the Munsiff-Magistrates and Senior Grade Judicial Magistrate.

The Association of Magistrates belonging to criminal side and others filed writ petition assailing validity of said integration, particularly validity of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, which was dismissed by the High Court, Against the Judgment ofHigh Court, petitioners therein have filed the present appeal. KERALA MAGISTRATE (JUDICIAL) v.

STATE 223 Appellants contended that the ratio of' 3:1 and 5:2 and its working out is unreasonable and unjust to the Magistrates belonging to criminal judiciary; that basis of integration was arbitrary and irrational as regu· lar length of service was not taken into account while considering seniority in integrated cadre; that fixation of quota under the Rules was invalid as relevant facts like number ofposl~ in entry grade of both wings, promotional avenues in each wing and promotional avenue in the integrated cadre were not taken into account in working out integration; and that the rules were discriminatory as appellants would practically have no prospect of promotion as compared to their counter parts on the civil side, thereby also affecting efficiency of service.

Respondent-High Court of Kerala contended that ratio was found to be most reasonable after thoroughly discussing the matter in several meet· ings of il' Full Court; that High Court considered all aspects like entry point, requirement of experience for entry, opening up of promotional avenue to higher cadre, and period taken for promotion, for both wings and arrived at final decision; that principle evolved for determination of inter-Se-seniority in integrated cadre may \vork out some injustice to some members but that cannot by itself he held to be arbitrary or irrational unless it is established that it acts with hostile discrimination; and that efficiency of service was considered in forming integrated cadre and in evolving principle of seniority of incumbents in integrated cadre. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. In Service . Jurisprudence, integration is a complicated administrative problem, where in doing broad justice to many, some bruise to a few cannot he ruled out.

It would not he possible or practical to measure the respective merits for the purpose of seniority with mathematical precision by a barometer and some formula doing larg~st good to the largest number has to be evolved. The court cannot substitute its wisdom for Government's save to see that unreasonable perversity, malafide manipulation, indefensible arbitrariness and infirmities do not defile the equation for integration. No scheme of amalgamation can be foolproof and a court would he entitled to interfere only when it comes to the conclusion that either the scheme is arbitrary or irrational or has been framed on some extraneous considerations. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity ~~ and malafides will render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the requirements of every employee is not evidence [2001] 2 S. C. R. of these. [229-H; 230-A-E] Men•yn Cuutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Or.

had full consultations with the kerala Public Service Commission as well as the High Court of Kerala. In fact it is the High Court which deliberated on the question of providing a ratio in the integrated cadre, which was ultimately accepted by the State Government. For a proper appreciation of the point in issue, Rule 3 of the Rules is quoted herein below in extenso : "3. Constitution : (I) TI1ere shall be a common service called 'The Kerala Judicial Service' in the place of existing Kerala Civil Judicial Service and Kerala Criminal Judicial Service. (2) The service shall consist of the following categories of officers, namely: Category I : Subordinate Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates. Category 2: Munsiff-Magistrates.

(3) The service shall first be fonned by integrating the members of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service consisting of Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs and the Members of Kerala Criminal Judicial Service consisting of Selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Senior Grade Judicial Magistrates of the first class, Judicial Magistrates of the first class and Judicial Magistrates of the second class. Criminal Judicial Service consisting of selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrates, Senior Grade Judicial Magistrates of the first class, Judicial Magistrates of the first class and Judicial Magistrates of the second class.

" (4) On the date of the coming into force of these Rules, category 1, Subordinate Judges/Chief Judicial Magistrates, shall be fotmed by integrating those in the category of Subordinate Judges and those in the category of Selection Grade Chief Judicial Magistrates and Chief Judicial Magistrates in the ratio of 3: 1, that is, the first three places KERALA MAGISTRATE (JUDICIAL) v. STATE [PATTANAJK, J. ] 229 shall be given to the Subordinate Judges and the fourt11 place to the Chief Judicial Magistrates and so on and categ01y 2, Munsiff-Magistrates, by integrating those in the catego1y ofMunsiffs and those in the categ01y of Senior Grade Judicial Magistrates of the first class and Judicial Magistrates of t11e first class, on tlie basis of t11e ratio of 5:2, that is the first three places shall he given to the Munsiffs, the fomth place to the Magistrates, fifth and sixt11 to the Munsiffs, seventh place to the Magistrates and so on.

(5) All the existing Judicial Magistrates of the second class at the commencement of these mies shall be absorbed in the category of Munsiff-Magistrates and shall be ranked below all the then existing Munsiff-Magistrates. " In the case of Men•yn Coutindo & Ors. v. Collector of Custom1, Bombay & On. , [1966] 3 SCR 600, where 50 per cent to the cadre of appraisers in the customs department was being filled up by the direct recmits and 50 per cent by the promotees, the senimity in the cadre of appraisers was required to be fixed by rotational system, alten1ative1y fixing promotee and direct recn1its.

This had been assailed but the Supreme Court upheld the principle on a finding tl1at there does not appear to be any violation of the principle of equality of opportunity ensluined in Article 16(1) by following the rotational system of fixing seniority in a cadre half of which consists of direct recruits and the other half of promotees, and the rotational system by itself working in this way cannot be said to deny equality of opportunity in Government service. In Joginder Nath v. Union ofIndia, [1975] 3 SCC 459, the Supreme Court had observed that it would not be possible or practical to measure the respective merits for the purpose of seniority with mathematical precision by a barometer and some formrda doing largest good to the largest number had to be evolved. The aforesaid observations had been made in the context of the Rules of seniority engrafted in Delhi Judicial Service Rules.

In one of tl1e earliest case relating to education department of Tamil Nadu, where a ratio had been fixed for promotion and principle of computation of service had been indicated for determining the common seniority, this Court had observed that in Service Jurisprudence, integration is a complicated administrative problem, where in doing broad justice to many, some bmise to a few cannot be mled out. In this particular case, the ratio of 5:2 and 3:2 had been prescribed for the ministerial staff and teaching staff, taking a realistic note of the total numbers of the two equivalent groups. The Supreme Court considered the strength of the District Board Staff to be inducted and held the ratio to be rational. TI1e Comt also observed that a better fonnula could be evolved, but the Court cailllot substitute its wisdom for Government's save to see that unreasonable perversity, mala fide manipulation, indefensible .. arbitrariness and infomities do not defile the equation for integration.

In the impugned Judgment, the Full Bench of Kcrala High Comt has taken note of the aforesaid decisions while approving the ratio provided for in the recmitment mies of 1991 in the integrated cadre. In Neiv bank ofIndia Employees' Union and Anr. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.

, [1996] 8 SCC 407, where the New Bank of India had been amalgamated with Punjab National Bank under a scheme and the amalgamation scheme provided for treatment of two years' service in the transferor bank as equivalent to one year service in the transferee bank for computing the length of service for the purpose of detennination of eligibility for promotion and where the ratio of 2: l had ·been fixed in Clause 4(a)(iii) of the Amalgamation Scheme for the purpose of inter se senio1ity, the same on being challenged, this Court had held that no scheme of amalgamation can be foolproof and a Court would be entitled to interfere only \Vhen it comes to the conclusion that either the scheme is arbitrary or irrational or has been framed on so1ne extraneous considerations. In coining to the aforesaid conclusion the Court had relied upon the observations made in the earlier decision in the case of V. T Khanzode v. Rese1w Bank ofIndia, [1982] 2 SCC 7, where the Court had observed that no scheme.

governing service matters can be foolproof and some section or the other of employees is bound to feel aggrieved on the score of its expectations being falsified or remaining to be fulfilled. Arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fides will of course render any scheme unconstitutional but the fact that the scheme does not satisfy the expectations of every employee is not evidence of these. It would, therefore, be necessary for us to examine whether lhe provisions of ratio of 3: 1 and 5:2 in the integrated ca<lre, as provided in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, can be held to be arbiu·ary. itrntional or perverse. Mr. Rao, however, relied upon the decision of this Court in the All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India and Or. ,-. , (1997] l .

SCC 520, where-under the proposal of the Govetmnent for promotion quota from Group "B" feeder cadre comprising of Cenu·at Excise Superintendents, Customs Superintendents and Customs Appraisers in the ratio of 6: 1:2 was held just fair and equitable. The Court in that case found the reasons given for the ultimate solution to be well founded and the ratio suggested on examining the panoramic view looking at the chart indicating the promotional potentiality in both the streams was held to be quite satisfactory. Mr. Rao also had relied upon the decision of this Cornt in the ca. se of Sub-Inspector Roop KERALA MAGISTRATE (JUDICIAL! v. STATE [PATTANA! K. J. ] 231 Lal and An' v. Lt. Govemor Delhi and Ors. , (2000] I SCC 644, where-under - \ when deputationists were absorbed . pe1mancntly in the deputation department and their seniority was being dete1mined after absorption, their previous services rendered had not been taken into account under the otJice memorandum.

The Court held the said principle to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 on the ground that when a deputationist is absorbed in the equivalent cadre in the transferred post, then tl1ere i's no reason why his past services will not be permitted to be colll1ted for the purpose of his seniority. This case will be of no assistance to the case in hand where the integration of the two wings of the Judicial Service has been made under a set of Rules framed by the Governor in exercise of powers confen-ed under Ai1icles 234 and 235 of the Constitution, after due consultations with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court and the High Court itself has elaborately discussed this question before taking a final decision. The only question therefore, remains to be considered by us is v. ·hether the Rules in question, providing ...

_ a ratio in the integrated cadre for detennination of inter se seniority between the incu1nbcnts of the criminal wing and incumbents of the civil \\1ing have been arbitrarily fixed or the same have been atTivcd at after due deliberation and on examining relevant and gennane factors. We have examined the relevant records containing the deliberations made in the Full Court Meetings of tl1e High Court on tl1e topic of integration of the two wings. It appears tl1at on the criminal side the entry post was Magisu·ate Second Class and the highest post, a Magisu·ate Second Class could reach was Chief Judicial Magistrate. On the Civil side the entry post was Mlll1siff and the highest post was the District Judge. The Association of the criminal Magistrates had all along been clamoring that the post of District and Sessions Judge should also be separated and the Chief Judicial Magistrates on the criminal side should also be promoted to the post of District and Sc&Sions Judge.

Such grievance had been considered by a Committee of three Judges headed by Dr. Justice Kochu Thommen and tl1e said Committee submitted a repo1t to integrate the two wings of the judicial services, way back in the year • 1985. Different Associations of J. Jdicial Otficers, both on the civil side as well as on the criminal side discussed the question of integration with the Hon'ble Chief Just. ice Slrri E. Balakrishna Pillai in January, 1986. The representatives of the Kerala Magistrates' Association when met the Chief Justice, expressed their views that a quota should be fixed for promotion on rotational basis and in fact it was their suggestion that the cadre of sub judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates should be a combined cadre and for the purpose of promotion to the post ofDistrict Judge from the combined cadre, promotion should be given .

~ on a proportion of3: I and so far as the integration of Munsiffs and Magistrates 1- First Class are concerned, their demand was that on integration, they should be promoted to the promotional cadre of Sub-Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates on a rotational basis at a prop01tion of3:2. This demand had been made on the assumption that there exist 85 posts of Munsiffs and 63 posts of Magistrates First Class. All these suggestions were placed before the Full Court of Kerala High Court for consideration. Before such consideration, information l1ad been gathered from the Registrars of the Kamataka High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court to find out as to principle that was adopted for detemrining the inter se seniority when there was an integration in those two States. The Full Court of Kerala High Court took all the relevant factors into consideration, including the info1mation received from the Registrars of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Courts.

1l1e Full Court, took into consideration the fact that the number of posts of District Judges, number of posts of Subord. inate Judges, the number of posts of Chief Judicial Magistrates, the number of posts of Munsiff Magistrates, the number of posts of Judicial Magistrates First Class and the nmnber of posts ofJudicial Magistrates Second Class, which existed on the date of the Full Court Meeting. The Court took notice of the fact that on the date of integration, 42 Magistrates Second Class will be absorbed in the category of Munsiff Magistrates and all of them will be duly benefited in their scale of pay. The Court also considered that in view of the number of posts available, while Munsiffs, could expect promotion to 49 posts of Subo~dinate Judge but the Judicial Magistrates could expect promotion only to 18 posts of Chief Judicial Magistrates, as it existed.

But by reason of integration, the chances ofpromotion of the Magistrates will be much more ellhanced, compared to the chances of promotion to the Munsiffs. The Court also considered the normal rate ofpromotion and found that for Munsiffs, the rate being 1. 25, for a Magistrate rate was only 0. 30 and on account of integration, the ratio would come to 0. 84, which indicates that over-all chances of promotion to the Munsiffs would get reduced from 1. 25 to 0. 84, whereas the chances of promotion of the Magistrates get increased from 0. 30 to 0. 84. The High Court, therefore, suggested that the ratio of 3: I should be fixed both in the integrated cadre of the Subordinate Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates for promotion to the post of District Judge as well as in the cadre of Munsiffs and Magistrates First Class for the promotion to the post of Subordinate Judges.

The High Court also was of the opinion that tl1e effect of integration will be that while Munsiffs would loose chances of promotion but the Magistrates will improve their chances ofpromotion, although some senior KERALA MAGISTRATE (JUDICIAL; v. STATE [PA1'1'ANAIK, J. ] 233 -- Magistrates, individually, will sustain some loss. But such loss is the usual consequence ofany integration process. Not\virhstanding the aforesaid recommendations of the High Court, the State Government on receipt of representation from the Magistrates' Association, made furtl1er correspondence with the High Court and suggested that the ratio for promotion from the Munsiffs and Magistrates to the Subordinate Judges should be fixed at 5:2. The High Court initially had some reservations, but ultimately accepted the same and communicated its acceptance to the Government, whereafter the rules were promulgated and Rule 3(4) of the Rules embodies the aforesaid principle.

Having examined the considerations made by tl1e High Court and the Government in fixing the ratio in the integrated cadre, embodied in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 1 bearing in mind the parameters and the power of a Comt for interference with such decisions, it is difficult for us to hold that the aforesaid Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 can be termed to be arbitrary or inational or that the decision has been taken without taking into consideration the germane materials. On the other hand, the final decision has been taken, after elaborate discussions, taking into account all the relevant factors and consequently, the Full Court of tl1e High Comt was fully justified in coming to the conclusion tliat tl1e Rule cannot be shuck down as being discri1ninatory or being violative of Article 14. We see no legal infirmity with the conclusions arrived at by the High Coun, requiring interference by this Court, even though, we agree that some individual Magistrates might have suffered some loss.

In the aforesaid premises, we do not find any merit in these appeals, which accordingly stand di$inissed. A. K. T. Appeals dismissed. -·