B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana

Quick Summary

This case protects the High Court’s real control over the subordinate judiciary. The Governor can make general service rules under Article 309, but cannot use those rules to take away the High Court’s powers under Article 235.

The quota for recruitment (promotees vs direct recruits) stops at the entry gate. It does not run seniority or confirmation. Seniority flows from continuous service, not from delayed confirmations set to fit a rota. Retrospective rule changes must be fair and rational; if they hurt a class without reason, they fail Articles 14 and 16.

Issues

• Does Article 235 limit the Governor’s rule-making under Article 309 for judicial officers?
• Can the quota rule extend beyond recruitment to confirmation and seniority?
• Do retrospective service rule amendments offend Articles 14 and 16?

Rules

• Article 309: Governor may frame general rules; application and control over service events remain with the High Court (Art. 235).
• Quota is a recruitment device only; it does not govern confirmation or seniority unless a valid statute clearly says so.
• Retrospective amendments must have a reasonable nexus and must not act arbitrarily against any group.

Arguments

Judgment (Held)

• Governor’s rule-making under Article 309 is valid but cannot dilute Article 235. The High Court controls probation and confirmation.
• Quota under Rule 8 is for recruitment only; it cannot run confirmation or seniority.
• Seniority must reflect continuous service in the post. Delayed confirmations to suit a rota offend Articles 14 and 16.
• Retrospective amendments to Rule 12 lacking reasonable nexus are invalid.
• Rotational confirmation system is unconstitutional where it undermines fairness and judicial control.

Ratio Decidendi

Real control under Article 235 includes deciding probation and confirmation. Recruitment quotas cannot be stretched to manage seniority. Seniority tracks real work done in the post, not engineered dates.

Why It Matters

• Shields judicial independence from executive overreach.
• Prevents quota mechanics from distorting careers after entry.
• Protects equality in service by tying seniority to actual service.

Key Takeaways

1. Art. 235 > operational control; Art. 309 > general rules.
2. Quota ends at recruitment; no role in confirmation/seniority.
3. Seniority = continuous service, not delayed confirmation.
4. Retrospective rules must be fair, rational, and non-arbitrary.
5. High Court is the confirming authority for judicial officers.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “JUDGE-C-SAFE”

• JUDGE — Judicial control (Art. 235) rules confirmation.
• C — Continuous service decides seniority.
• SAFE — Service Amendments Fair & Even (no arbitrariness).

3-Step Hook:

1. Ask: “Who controls confirmation?” → High Court (Art. 235).
2. Check: “Is it recruitment or career?” → Quota only at recruitment.
3. Fix: “How is seniority set?” → By continuous service.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can Article 309 rules curb Article 235 control? Can quota shape confirmation/seniority? Are retrospective changes fair?

Rule: Art. 235 gives High Court control over probation/confirmation; quota is for entry; seniority follows continuous service; retrospective rules must be fair.

Application: Rota confirmations delayed promotees; confirmations tied to quota distorted seniority; retrospective tweaks lacked fair nexus.

Conclusion: High Court retains confirmation power; quota cannot alter seniority; unfair retrospective changes fail Articles 14 and 16.

Glossary

Article 235

High Court control over subordinate courts, including postings, probation, and confirmation.

Article 309

Power to make service rules for government servants.

Quota Rule

Distribution of vacancies between promotees and direct recruits at recruitment stage.

Continuous Service

Unbroken service in the post; used here as the true basis of seniority.

FAQs

Related Cases