#SupremeCourt will shortly resume its Constitution Bench hearing on the issues regarding inter-se seniority in the cadre of higher-judicial service. 
Sr adv PS Patwalia appearing for Delhi HC continues with his submissions
J Baghchi : what is your response to case of Japnath v UOI, that is one case where experience is taken as the classification for consideration
Patwalia: the facts in that are different, here the experience is the same for everybody, here we are all part of the same cadre
J Baghchi : your ACR here would be of the experience as District Judge entry level
J Baghchi : and not the experience prior
Patwalia : and here the classification is to happen on the basis of birthmark on entry that is not valid at all
Sr Adv Jaideep Gupta makes his submissions
Gupta submits that as per the AIJA case 2 the change in the rule of seniority was set with the toaster system
Gupta: therefore the question really is whether there should be a change in the rule of seniority?
GUPTA : the purpose of amicus submissions is to have better opportunities for the promotees, but we have not argued that there is a general failure of the roaster system
Gupta : the question is whether the Rota system is to remain in light of the proper representation of the promotees or not
Gupta explains that the working of the roaster system has to be determined through empirical data
Gupta submits that in WB total posts are 59 out of which only 27 are direct recruits and 32 promotees
Gupta : if the seniority rule is correct at the base then it will reflect at the level of the principal district judge also, subject only to performance
J Kant : the selection grade and supertime scale is something available to the entire cadre, if we already articulate the entry point signified at the beginning, then somebody who is pushed behind will not reach the 50% , irrespective of seniority, you will never get it
Gupta : Therefore your lordships are investigating that at the entry level the seniority is fixed in a fair manner for reaching the post of Principal Judge
Gupta refers to suggestion 3 of the amicus : they will be given weightage based on their lower cadres, civil judge Jr-Sr - there is a big problem, inevitably it means that the longest serving district judge will always be senior to everybody else
Gupta: it will not only push down direct recruits, but also direct recruits who have been district civil judges in the past and have come in the direct recruit quota as per mylords judgment in Rajnish
Gupta: It will also push down the LDCE, because the LDCE will have necessarily have less experience as civil judge than those who enter the services and remain
Sr Adv Jayant Bhushan appears for one the intervenors
Bhushan relies on the decision in Indira Sahwney: once you make a reservation, even in promotion, then you are competing with your own category
Bhushan: Then promotee civil judges will be competing with promotee civil judges, you are then not competing with the direct recruits, which is something not desirable as per Indira Sawhney
Bhushan : my alterbative suggestion is that it (promotion) be given to those who have worked as civil judges whether or not they are in the direct recruitment category
Bhushan: like me- I was a civil judge, then I served for several years, today I qualified for the direct recruitment exams, now Iam a direct recruit
Bhushan: so if you have that basis that you will give it to those who have worked, that should also be given to me , because the classification is based on the fact that those who have worked as judges have better experience
Sr Adv Gopal S makes his submissions
Gopal S : if there is data that promotee judges serve better than direct recruits, or direct recruits serve better than promotee judges or 1:1 ratio, that data has not been found- if the data is not there, the link is not there. The link between the necessary ratio between direct recruits and promotees, the fact that one is better than the other in serving the ends of justice, that I cannot find
Gopal S : infact what I find is that the court that I practise in today (SC) - out of the 34 judges, not one is a promotee
Sr Adv Vibha Makhija interjects : we have two CJIs in SC who came through the service route
CJI: we are basically not going on a dispute between direct recruits and promotees, we are trying to find out what should be the best system in order to enhance the efficiency of adjudication of justice
Gopal S : my only suggestion is - If mylords will lay down any guidelines it should be on 2 principles - (1) it should be based on enough data, some material on the basis of which we believe that there is a problem which we need to address
Gopal S : (2) We begin as common pool, once we begin as common pool you cannot seperate us
Sr Adv Rajiv Shakdher appears for direct recruits of the UP Judicial Services
Shakhder briefly submits that in UP as per data, the promotee judges are more in number. Except for Bihar and HP, rest of the states, the promotees seem to be in healthy number
Shakhder stresses that there has to be a judicial hierarchy to follow- there is danger in saying guidelines with discretion - may not be work
Other intervenors make their arguments in brief.
Court breaks for lunch
Court breaks for lunch
Bench resumes
Intervenors continue to make their submissions
Intervenors continue to make their submissions
hearings conclude. Bench reserves judgment
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
