{"id":92083,"date":"1987-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987"},"modified":"2015-03-08T00:05:32","modified_gmt":"2015-03-07T18:35:32","slug":"p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","title":{"rendered":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 260, \t\t 1988 SCR (1) 398<\/div>\n
Author: G Oza<\/div>\n
Bench: Oza, G.L. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.K. DIXIT AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATF OF U.P. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nBENCH:\nOZA, G.L. (J)\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  260\t\t  1988 SCR  (1) 398\n 1987 SCC  (4) 621\t  JT 1987 (4)\t 55\n 1987 SCALE  (2)706\n\n\nACT:\n     Uttar Pradesh  Higher  Judicial  Service  Rules,  1975:\nRules 3,  8, 22,  23 and 26 Additional District and Sessions\nJudge-Seniority-Determination\tof-Notification\t  abolishing\npost of\t Civil and  Sessions Judge-Effect  of-Filling up  of\npost  from  officers  of  Nyayika  Sewa-Appointment  to\t the\nservice on  occurrence of  substantive\tvacancies-Oficiating\nperiod-Whether to  be considered  as  period  of  probation-\nConfirmation-To be  from the earliest date vacancy available\nand not\t from  a  date\tfixed  arbitrarily-Seniority  to  be\ncounted on the basis of date of confirmation-Promotions made\nafter coming  into force  of rules-Principles  of  seniority\napplicable to. to\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In May,  1974 the Higher Judicial Service for the State\nof UP  was constituted,\t and the  post of Civil and Sessions\nJudge was  abolished. The U.P. State Higher Judicial Service\nRules, 1975 came into force with effect from May 10, 1975.\n     The  petitioners-State  Judicial  Service\tOfficers-who\nwere promoted  on  various  dates  to  the  Higher  Judicial\nService and  posted as\tAdditional District Judges\/Civil and\nSessions Judges\t before 1974,  filed writ  petitions in this\nCourt  challenging  their  inter  se  seniority,  vis-a-vis,\ndirect recruits contending that, on their confirmation, they\nwere given  seniority from  a date  chosen by the High Court\narbitrarily, instead  of from  the date\t of their continuous\nofficiation, which  had resulted  in their being placed much\nbelow  the   officers  appointed   much\t later\t by   direct\nrecruitment,  that   there  was\t  no  provision\t for  direct\nrecruitment to\tthe Higher  Judicial Service before the 1975\nrules were brought into force and all the existing vacancies\non that\t date were  to be  filled  by  only  promotion,\t and\ntherefore, the\tHigh Court,  while confirming and giving the\ndates for the purpose of seniority, ought to have prepared a\nlist of a vacancies existing on the date the rules came into\nforce and  confirmed  all  those  who  were  officiating  as\nAdditional and\tDistrict Judges or Civil and Sessions Judges\non that day in all those vacancies. They also contended that\nwhile computing\t the seniority only three years were counted\nwhereas they  should have been given advantage of continuous\nofficiation as they were officiating in the posts before the\n1975 rules came into existence.\n399\n     The aforesaid  petitions were  contested  by  the\tHigh\nCourt contending  that as it became necessary to fill in the\ntemporary  posts  the  formality  of  examining\t record\t and\nconsideration by a Committee or the Full Court was not done,\nand all\t the petitioners were appointed only on the basis of\nseniority  and\t not  in  accordance  with  the\t rules\tand,\ntherefore,  they  could\t not  be  treated  as  appointed  on\nprobation from\tthe date  of their officiation and that even\nif an  officer had  been continuously  working for more than\nthree years,  still for\t the purpose  of computing seniority\nonly three years will be counted as per proviso to Rule 26.\n     Allowing the writ petitions partly,\n^\n     HELD:  1.1\t  The  period\tof  officiation\t has  to  be\nconsidered as  period of  probation and the confirmation has\nto be  from  the  date\ton  which  earliest  a\tvacancy\t was\navailable and the seniority has to be counted on that basis.\n[406A]\n     1.2 Before the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975\nwere brought  into force, there was no rule requiring direct\nrecruitment and\t hence all  the posts  available were  to be\nfilled by promotion. In view of this, and in view of proviso\nto Rule 8, all the posts (permanent) available in the Higher\nJudicial Service plus thirty one temporary posts existing on\nthat date,  which may  become  permanent  later,  should  be\nfilled by  promotion from amongst the members of the Nyayika\nSewa. Some  of\tthe  posts  may\t be  occupied  by  promotees\nofficers who  were given  promotions on\t ad  hoc  basis\t and\nworking on  these posts\t or that  the  posts  may  be  Lying\nvacant. Whatever  may be  the situation the matter will have\nto be  gone into  afresh by the High Court and all the posts\nin the\tHigher Judicial Service available as on May 10, 1974\nplus thirty one posts have to be filled from the officers of\nthe Nyayika Sewa. [403C, 406E-G]\n     1.3 In view of Para 3 of the Rules and the Notification\nabolishing the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges, all those\nofficers who  were officiating\tas Civil and Sessions Judges\non 8th\tMay, 1974  automatically became\t Additional District\nand Sessions  Judges. What  has been contemplated in Rule 20\ncould not  be applied  retrospectively for promotions before\n1975. What  was left was only a consideration of their cases\nof confirmation.  In doing  so, the only thing that could be\nkept in\t view is the date on which a vacancy (permanent) was\navailable for  their confirmation and the seniority of those\nofficers will  have to\tbe reckoned  in accordance  with the\ndate of\t confirmation which  will be  not the actual date of\nconfirmation but a date when a post was available, and in so\ndoing, it  will not  also be  reasonable to fix any date, as\nhas been done by\n400\n     the High  Court  arbitrarily  on  the  assumption\tthat\nactually when  they were  promoted they\t were  not  promoted\nafter following\t the procedure.\t The only  thing that can be\nconsidered will\t be that  if at\t the time of confirmation an\nofficer was  not found\tfit  naturally\the  must  have\tbeen\nreverted, and  the question  of ms  seniority in  the Higher\nJudicial Service,  therefore, will not arise. [407G-H, 408B-\nE]\n     So far  as the  posts available  on 10th  May, 1974  is\nconcerned, the\tHigh Court will have to look into the matter\nafresh and  decide the\tseniority. But\tafter the rules came\ninto force,  the Rules\twill have  to be  given\t effect\t to.\n[408H, 409A]\n     2.1 In  Rule 22 the phrase used is \"to make appointment\nto the\tservice on the occurrence of substantive vacancies\".\nThe substantive\t vacancy has  not been defined in the Rules.\nBut the scheme of the rules clearly indicates that there are\npermanent posts\t and temporary\tposts also which are created\nto meet\t contingency and  it  may  in  due  course  be\tmade\npermanent. Therefore,  when appointment\t under\tRule  22  is\ncontemplated in the service of substantive vacancies, it may\nbe both\t temporary or  permanent. But the vacancy must be in\nthe cadre.  A  person  could  only  be\tconfirmed  when\t the\npermanent post\tis available  for him.\tIt is clear from cl.\n(3) of Rule 22 that appointment to temporary vacancies shall\nbe made\t from the Nyayika Sewa and as and when a substantive\nvacancies arises  the  procedure  for  selection  should  be\nfollowed and  the officers who were appointed to fill in the\ntemporary post\tshould be  considered first and appointed on\nprobation if found fit. [410D-F, 410H-411A]\n     2.2 Normally  the period  of  probation  shall  be\t two\nyears. In computing this period of probation, an officer who\nhas been  continuously officiating  immediately prior to his\nappointment on probation will also be taken into account and\nthe period  of probation in any event shall not exceed three\nyears. Proviso\t2 to  Rule 26  provides that  in the case of\npromotee officers a maximum period of continuous officiation\nin the\tservice shall  not, for\t the purpose  of determining\nseniority, exceed three years immediately preceding the date\nof confirmation.  This is  consistent with the Rule 23 which\nprovides that total period of probation shall not ordinarily\nexceed three years. [412A-B, C-D]\n     These principles  of seniority  will apply\t only to the\npromotions made\t after the rules came into force. The scheme\nof the\trules is  that if a person is appointed to officiate\nin the\tHigher Judicial\t Service his  case for\tconfirmation\nwill normally be considered within three years and either he\nwill be confirmed or reverted and the High Court is expected\n401\n     to examine\t the case  of the  promotee  officer  within\nthree years  and decide\t whether the  officer deserves to be\nconfirmed or reverted. [412E-F]\n     By laying\tdown that  the period of probation shall not\nordinarily exceed  three years\tand that only three years of\ncontinuous officiation\twill  be  counted  for\tpurposes  of\nseniority in  the  case\t of  promotee  officers,  the  rules\ncontemplate that  there will  not be an occassion when there\nmay be\ta person  officiating for  more than three years and\nhis case  has not  yet\tbeen  considered  for  confirmation.\n[412G-H]\n     Ordinarily, if  the Rules\twere brought  into force the\nappointments to\t the Higher  Judicial Service, either on the\nbasis of  direct recruitment  or on  the basis of promotion,\nmust have  been in  accordance with  the  Rules\t and  it  is\nexpected that  the probation, confirmation and the seniority\nmust have  been looked\tinto by\t the High  Court strictly in\naccordance with the Rules. [413A-B]\n     3. About the appointments on the posts available before\nthese Rules were brought into force and to fill in temporary\nposts, the  matter will\t have to  be examined  afresh by the\nHigh Court  and the  posts available  on 10th May, 1974 plus\nthirty\tone  posts  will  have\tto  be\tfilled\tin  only  by\npromotees. Thereafter  the High\t Court\tshould\texamine\t the\ncases of promotion and direct recruitment, after coming into\nforce of  these Rules,\tand the\t vacancies available.  After\nconsidering the\t cases in  accordance with  these Rules, the\nHigh Court  will prepare afresh the seniority list which may\nbe notified so that if any objections are raised they may be\nplaced for  determination  in  accordance  with\t the  Rules.\n[413D-F]\n     O.P. Singla  & Anr.  etc. v.  Union of  India  &  Ors.,\n[1985] 1 SCR 35 l, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.11788-
\n11796 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n     G.L. Sanghi, P.P. Rao, Raja Ram Aggarwal, Ayyam Perumal
\nand R. Venkatramani for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     S.N. Kacker,.  B.D. Aggarwal, M.K. Ramamurthi, P. Gaur,
\nJitendra Sharma for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
402<\/span><\/p>\n
     Anil Deo  Singh, and  Mrs. S.  Dikshit for the State of
\nU.P. and Jitendra Sharma for the others.\n<\/p>\n
     U.R. Lalit,  Suresh  Seth,\t R.D.  Upadhyaya  and  Madan
\nSharma for the Intervenor
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     OZA, J.  These writ  petitions filed by the petitioners
\nchallenge the  inter se\t seniority of  the officers  in\t the
\nhigher judicial service coming from two sources; i) promoted
\nfrom the  judicial service  and ii)  others who are directly
\nrecruited from the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioners  are officers  of\tthe  State  Judicial
\nService who  have been\tpromoted on  various  dates  to\t the
\nhigher judicial\t service and  posted as\t Additional District
\nJudges or  some of  them were  posted as  Civil and Sessions
\nJudges before 1974 as in 1974 the post of Civil and Sessions
\nJudge has been abolished and the higher judicial service for
\nthe State of Uttar Pradesh was constituted.\n<\/p>\n
     According to  the petitioners  they  were\tpromoted  to
\nofficiate as  Additional District  and\tSessions  Judges  on
\nvarious dates  and they\t continue to officiate as such, they
\nwere confirmed\tand on\ttheir confirmation  they  have\tbeen
\ngiven the  seniority not  from the  date of their continuous
\nofficiation but\t from some  other date\tchosen by  the\tHigh
\nCourt arbitrarily.  And because of which, they have been put
\nin the seniority list much below those officers appointed by
\ndirect recruitment  and who  were appointed  much after\t the
\npetitioners.  According\t  to  the   petitioners,  they\twere
\npromoted on various dates shown against their names and they
\nhave also shown the dates on which they were confirmed:<\/p>\n
\nS. Pet. name\t    Date of   Date of pro-  Date of  Date of\nNo.\t\t    joining   motion &\t    confir-  vacancy\n\t\t    PCS (J)   continous\t    mation  in which\n\t\t    Nyayika   officiation\t  confirmed.\n\t\t     Sewa      in HJS on\n\t\t\t       Addl.\n\t\t\t       distt. &\n\t\t\t       Sessions\n\t\t\t       Judge\n1. P.K. Dixit\t    1.3.61    9.9.73\t    24.1.81  1.10.78\n2. A.N. Gupta\t    1.3.61    22.9.73\t    24.1.81  1.10.78\n403<\/span>\n3. B.K. Srivastava  1.3.61    29.3.74\t    24.1.81  30.4.79\n4. I.S. Mathur\t    1.4.62    24.5:74\t    24.1.81  31.7.79\n5. Taj Shanker\t    1.4.62    16.8.76\t    24.1.81   1.1.80\n6. R.N. Sarkar\t    17.4.61   16.8.76\t    29.10.83  1.1.80\n7. S.P. Agarawal    2.3.63     3.1.77\t    29.10.83  1.1.80\n8. A.K. Srivastava  1.3.63     3.1.77\t    29.10.83  1.1.80\n<\/pre>\n
____________________________________________________________
\n     In this  list they\t have also  shown the  date  of\t the
\nvacancy on which they were proposed to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  also contended on behalf of the petitioners that
\nin 1975\t the present  rules for\t recruitment of the judicial
\nofficers in  the higher\t judicial service  came into  force.
\nBefore these  rules were  brought into\tforce,\tthe  earlier
\nrules were  declared to\t be bad and in substances therefore,
\nbefore these  rules were  brought into\tforce, there  was no
\nprovision for  direct recruitment  to  the  higher  judicial
\nservice. It  is contended that all the vacancies existing on
\nthe date  on which  these rules (1975 Rules) came into force
\nhave to\t be filled in by promotion. And while confirming and
\ngiving the  dates for  the purposes  of seniority,  the High
\nCourt ought to have prepared a list of vacancies existing on
\nthe date  on which  these rules (1975 Rules) came into force
\nand confirm  all those\twho were  officiating as  Additional
\nDistrict and Sessions Judges or Civil and Sessions Judges on
\nthis date  in all  those vacancies.  And if  this was  done,
\nthese petitioners  who were appointed before 1975 could have
\nbeen confirmed\ton those  vacancies and\t in that  event they
\ncould not  have been confirmed in the vacancies occurring in
\n1978, 1979 & 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not disputed that out of these petitioners first
\nfour were promoted in 1973 and 1974 and on the date on which
\nthese rules  came into\tforce, they were already functioning
\nas  Civil   and\t Sessions   Judges  as\tthe  designation  of
\nAdditional District Judges was not there.\n<\/p>\n
     In the written affidavit filed by the High Court, it is
\nnot disputed  that before  these  rules\t were  brought\tinto
\nforce, all  the posts  which were  available on\t the date on
\nwhich these  rules came\t into force  have to be filled in by
\npromotion as  till that\t date there  was no  rule  requiring
\ndirect recruitment.  But unfortunately,\t the High  Court  in
\ntheir  return\thave  not  mentioned  the  exact  number  of
\nvacancies existing  on that date also the number of officers
\nwho were  officiating on  that date  as Civil  and  Sessions
\nJudges or Additional District and Sessions Judges
\n404<\/span>
\nwho were  entitled to  be included  in that  cadre of higher
\njudicial service under these rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt,\tit  was\t contended  has\t prepared  a
\nseniority list\twhich has  been notified and objections have
\nbeen invited.  It was  therefore directed  that list must be
\nproduced in this Court and consequently, the lists have been
\nproduced. The  seniority list  or the  list which  have been
\nproduced along\twith the  affidavit filed  by Mr.  Chaterjee
\nclaiming to  be in  charge of  the litigations\tof the\tHigh
\nCourt, unfortunately  do not  clearly give  the picture. The
\nlist must  show the  initial date  on  which  officers\twere
\npromoted and  were posted  in the post of Civil and Sessions
\nJudge or  Additional District  and Sessions  Judge. It\talso
\ndoes not  clearly show\tthe  date  on  which  the  order  of
\nconfirmation was  issued. And it should have been made clear
\nthat before  this date\tof confirmation, on what date a post
\nwas available  for confirmation\t of the\t person concerned so
\nthat he\t should get  the seniority  if not  from the date on
\nwhich he  was promoted\tfor the\t first time from the date on
\nwhich the  post was  available for him. It was expected that
\nthese facts  clearly should  have been\tstated in the return
\nfiled on behalf of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not disputed  that on  the date  on which  these
\nrules (1975  Rules) were  brought into\tforce, all the posts
\navailable were\tto Go  to the promoted officers and the only
\nthing that  the High  Court is expected to do is to find out
\nhow many  posts were  available on  that date  and how\tmany
\npersons were  officiating in  the higher judicial service or
\nequivalent posts  on that  date and their seniority ought to
\nbe fixed on the basis of their promotion to the posts except
\nwhere  an  officer  was\t not  found  fit  or  where  officer
\nconcerned was  reverted back  to  the  judicial\t posts.\t The
\ndocuments do  not disclose  that any  one of  these judicial
\nofficers  who\twere  promotees\t  have\tbeen  reverted.\t The
\ndocuments also\tdo not\tdisclose that  at any  time the High
\nCourt considered  the question of their confirmation and any
\none of\tthem was  not found fit for confirmation, or that it
\nwas decided to postpone the date of confirmation because the
\nwork of\t the officer  was not  upto  the  mark.\t The  record
\nproduced by  the High  Court only  shows the date from which
\nthese petitioners  were promoted  and started officiating as
\nAdditional District  Judges and\t the date on which they were
\nultimately confirmed.  During this  period  their  case\t was
\nconsidered at  any time\t does not  appear  from\t the  record
\nproduced in  this case nor was the contention of the learned
\ncounsel appearing  for the High Court. It, therefore, is not
\ndisputed that  these petitioners  who were  promoted  before
\nthese rules  (1975 Rules) were brought into force were never
\nfound unfit for con
\n405<\/span>
\nfirmation and  in this\tview of the matter, therefore, it is
\nclear that  all posts  available on  the date on which these
\nnew rules  were brought into force will have to be filled in
\nby  these   promoted  officers\t who  were  working  in\t the
\nofficiating capacity  in the post of higher judicial service
\non the date on which these rules were brought into force. So
\nfar as\tthe situation  before these  rules were brought into
\nforce is  concerned even  during the  course of argument not
\nmuch controversy  appears to  exist as\tit is clear that the
\nquestion of  direct recruitment\t and the quota of the direct
\nrecruits vis-a-vis promotees was not in existence.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended on behalf of the High Court that when
\nthese judicial officers were promoted as it became necessary
\nto fill\t in the\t temporary posts  the formality of examining
\ntheir record  and consideration\t by a  committee or the full
\ncourt was  not done  but were  only promoted on the basis of
\nseniority and  therefore from  the  date  from\twhich  these
\nofficers started  officiating  as  Additional  District\t and
\nSessions Judges,  they could  not be treated as appointed on
\nprobation. But\tit is  not the\tcase of\t the High Court that
\nafter such  adhoc promotion  whenever the  High Court  (full
\ncourt or  a committee)\texamined their cases any one of them
\nwho may have been found not fit for promotion normally would
\nbe reverted  back to  his original  post and  if at any time
\nthese officers\twere not  reverted then\t imaginary date\t for
\nprobation  could   not\tbe   given  on\tarbitrary  basis  as
\nthroughout their  officiation  as  Additional  District\t and
\nSessions Judges\t they have  been found\tfit  and  they\twere
\ncontinuing on  these posts. It is also not stated when after
\nan officer  was promoted  to fill in the temporary post, his
\ncase was  considered for promotion to a substantive post. At
\nbest while  confirming and  giving seniority  the only thing
\nthat could be considered was the availability of a permanent
\npost and  from the date a permanent post was available these
\nofficers had to be confirmed giving them seniority from that
\ndate.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the stand of the High Court is that as
\nand when  a temporary  vacancy was  available an officer who
\nwas the\t seniarmost was promoted as Civil and Sessions Judge
\nor Additional  District and Sessions Judge but it is not the
\ncase of\t the High  Court that  afterwards the  case of\tsuch
\npromoted officers  was considered  by a\t committee or by the
\nfull court  after examining the records and this was done at
\nany time  before their\tcases came  up for consideration for
\nconfirmation.  It   only  appears   that  their\t cases\twere
\nconsidered for\tconfirmation and  at that time some date has
\nbeen given  from which\tthey were treated to be on probation
\nand on\tthat basis  the seniority  has been  counted but  as
\nstated earlier\tin absence  of any one of these officers not
\nhaving been
\n406<\/span>
\nfound fit  for promotion  this stand taken by the High Court
\ncan not\t be A justified. The period of officiation has to be
\nconsidered as  period of  probation and the confirmation has
\nto be  from  the  date\ton  which  earliest  a\tvacancy\t was
\navailable and the seniority has to be counted on that basis.
\nUnfortunately neither  the affidavit  filed on behalf on the
\nHigh Court  nor the list clearly shows the position of these
\njudicial officers  who were  promoted long  before these new
\nrules were  brought into  force in  1975 and  what has\tbeen
\nstated above  will have\t to be\tdone afresh  so far  as\t the
\nofficers who were promoted before the new rules were brought
\ninto force in 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     This also appears to be the intention of the rules when
\nthey were  framed in  1975 as  is clear\t from the proviso to
\nRule 8. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Provided further  that  the\tpermanent  vacancies
\n\t  existing on  May 10,\t1974 plus 31 temporary posts
\n\t  existing on  that  date,  if\tand  when  they\t are
\n\t  converted into permanent posts, shall be filled by
\n\t  promotion from  amongst the members of the Nyayika
\n\t  Sewa; and  only the  remaining vacancies  shall be
\n\t  shared  between  the\tthree  sources\tunder  these
\n\t  rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It therefore  is clear\tthat even  these rules provided that
\nall the\t posts (permanent)  available in the Higher Judicial
\nService existing  on May  10, 1974  plus 31  temporary posts
\nexisting on that date which may become permanent later shall
\nbe filled  by promotion\t from amongst  the  members  of\t the
\nNyayika Sewa.  It is  therefore clear  that all the posts in
\nthe Higher  Judicial Service,  Lying vacant  on May 10, 1974
\nplus thirty  one will have to be filled in from the officers
\nof the\tNyayika Sewa. May be that some of these posts may be
\noccupied by  promotee officers\twho were given promotions on
\nad hoc\tbasis and  working on  those posts or that the posts
\nmay be\tLying vacant.  Whatever may  be the situation on the
\nbasis of  what has been discussed above and also as has been
\nclearly provided  in these  rules the matter will have to be
\ngone into by the High Court afresh and fill in all the posts
\nin the\tHigher Judicial\t Service available  on May  10, 1974
\nplus 31 posts from the officers of the Nyayika Sewa.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears that the date 10th MAY has been mentioned in
\nthis proviso  to Rule  8 because by Notification of May 1974
\nthe Higher Judicial Service was constituted and the posts of
\nCivil and  Sessions Judges  were abolished.  Paragraph 3  of
\nthese Rules  notified on 8th May 1975 about the abolition of
\nCivil and  Sessions Judges is also significant. Para 3 reads
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
407<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Creation of\tposts and confirmation: (1) Upon the
\n\t  abolition of\tthe  cadre  of\tCivil  and  Sessions
\n\t  Judges,   permanent\tand   temporary\t  posts\t  of
\n\t  Additional District  and Sessions  Judges equal in
\n\t  number  of  the  permanent  and  temporary  posts,
\n\t  respectively,\t of   Civil  and   Sessions   Judges
\n\t  existing   immediately    before   the   date\t  of
\n\t  commencement of  these rules,\t shall stand created
\n\t  with effect  from the\t said date, and the officers
\n\t  holding the  posts of\t Civil and  Sessions  Judges
\n\t  immediately before  the  said\t date  shall  become
\n\t  Additional District  and Sessions  Judges  and  be
\n\t  designated accordingly. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This clearly  indicates that  those holding the posts either
\ntemporarily or\tpermanently as\tCivil  and  Sessions  Judges
\nimmediately before  this date i.e. 8th May 1974 shall become
\nAdditional District  and Sessions Judges and were designated
\naccordingly. It\t is therefore clear that the officer who was
\nofficiating as\tCivil and  Sessions Judge  on 8th  May\t1974
\nautomatically became  Additional District and Sessions Judge
\nand  therefore\t it  could  not\t be  contended\tthat  proper
\nprocedure for  promotion was  not followed  but as  and when
\noccasion arose an officer in the Judicial Service was posted
\nas Civil and Sessions Judge to perform the functions of that
\noffice on the basis of seniority. It was also contended that
\nwhen initially\tan officer  in the Judicial Service (Nyayika
\nSewa) was  posted to  perform the  functions  of  Civil\t and
\nSessions Judge,\t his promotion\twas not\t done in  accordance
\nwith the  Rules and what was suggested was that no Committee
\nconsidered their record but on the basis of seniority it was
\ndecided to  promote them. This argument appears to have been
\nbased on  the Rules  of 1975  where  for  promotion  of\t the
\nmembers of  the Nyayika\t Sewa  it  has\tbeen  provided\tthat
\nSelection Committee  will examine the record of the eligible
\nJudicial officers and then shall prepare a list of those who
\nhave been  selected for\t promotion and as and when a vacancy
\noccurs\tan   officer  from   this  list\t will  be  promoted.
\nAdmittedly this\t what has been contemplated in Rule 20 could
\nnot be\tapplied retrospectively\t for promotions\t before 1975
\nwhen the  Rules were  brought into  force and it is also not
\nsuggested or  brought on  record that  there  was  any\tsuch
\nsystem or  practice in\tthe High Court. In fact, nothing has
\nbeen brought  on record to indicate as to how an officer was
\nappointed to  the post\tof Civil and Sessions Judge from the
\nNyayika Sewa. In this view of the matter also and in view of
\nthe Notification  abolishing the posts of Civil and Sessions
\nJudges dated  8th May  1974 it\tis apparent that there is no
\nscope for going back and those who were working as Civil and
\nSessions  Judges   either  against  temporary  or  permanent
\nvacancies either appointed temporarily or
\n408<\/span>
\npermanently became  Additional District\t and Sessions Judges
\ntemporary or  permanent as  the case  may be  and  therefore
\nthere is  no scope for examining their cases now to find out
\nas to  whether they  were promoted  in accordance  with\t the
\nprocedure prescribed  in Rule  20 which was the rule enacted
\nin 1975.  It has therefore to be accepted that all those who
\nwere working  as Civil\tand Sessions  Judges on 8th May 1974
\nautomatically became Additional District and Sessions Judges
\nand what was left was only a consideration of their cases of
\nconfirmation and  in so\t doing in  view of  the\t conclusions
\narrived at  by us  and also  as has  been  provided  in\t the
\nproviso to  Rule 8  quoted above  all the posts available on
\n10th May  1974 plus  31 posts  (temporary) on that date will
\nhave to\t be filled  in from  the cadre\tof Nyayika  Sewa  by
\npromotion. In  this  view  of  the  matter  therefore  while
\nconfirming these Judicial officers who were working as Civil
\nand Sessions  Judges and  who became Additional District and
\nSessions Judges\t on abolition  of the  cadre  of  Civil\t and
\nSessions Judges\t automatically the  only thing that could be
\nkept in\t view is the date on which a vacancy (permanent) was
\navailable for  their confirmation and the seniority of these
\nofficers will  have to\tbe reckoned  in accordance  with the
\ndate of\t confirmation which  will be  not the actual date of
\nconfirmation but  a date when a post was available and in so
\ndoing it  will not also be reasonable to fix any date as has
\nbeen done  by the High Court arbitrarily on the basis of the
\nassumption that\t initially when they were promoted they were
\nnot promoted  after following  the precedure. The only thing
\nthat can  be considered\t will be  that if  at  the  time  of
\nconfirmation an\t officer was not found fit naturally he must
\nhave been reverted, and the question of his seniority in the
\nHigher Judicial\t Service  therefore  will  not\tarise.\tMuch
\nreliance was  placed on\t the decision of this Court in o. P.
\nSingla &  Anr. etc.  v. Union  of India\t & ors. [1985] 1 SCR\n<\/p>\n
351. So\t far as\t the officers promoted before the Rules were
\nbrought into  force, this  decision also  does not carry the
\nmatter further\tand as\tregards the interpretation of rules,
\nalthough an attempt was made to contend that the Delhi Rules
\nand the U.P. Rules are similar but it could not be said that
\nthey are  identical and\t therefore also this decision is not
\nof much help to the case of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     It could  not be  disputed that after these Rules which
\nare Uttar  Pradesh Higher  Judicial Service Rules, 1975 came
\ninto force  a ratio  has been  fixed for the direct recruits
\nand promotees.\tThe petitioners\t also did  not challenge the
\nratio nor  did they challenge the rules except on the ground
\nthat while  computing seniority\t they should  be  given\t the
\nadvantage of  the continuous officiation. As discussed above
\nso far as the posts available on a particular date i.e. 10th
\nMay 1974 is concerned
\n409<\/span>
\nthe High  Court will have to look into the matter afresh and
\ndecide the  seniority in the light of what we have discussed
\nbut after the rules came into force it could not be disputed
\nthat the  rules will have to be given effect to. These rules
\nhave provided  the mode\t of promotion  & selection  and have
\nalso provided  the manner  in which  the seniority  will  be
\ncomputed.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  contended that  the phrase\t “appointment to the
\nservice” which\thas been  used in  Rule\t 22  should  not  be
\nrestricted  to\tthe  substantive  vacancies  i.e.  permanent
\nvacancies only.\t As it\twas  contended\tthat  the  term\t the
\nservice” in  Rule 3  has been  defined to mean Uttar Pradesh
\nHigher Judicial\t Service and it does not mean only permanent
\nposts. Rule  22 provides for the manner of appointments from
\nthe direct  recruits as\t well as  from the  promotees  which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Appointment-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
\n\t  rules (2)  and (3),  the Governor shall on receipt
\n\t  from the Court of the lists mentioned in rules 18,
\n\t  20 and  21 make appointments to the service on the
\n\t  occurrence  of  substantive  vacancies  by  taking
\n\t  candidates from  the lists  in the  order in which
\n\t  they stand in the respective lists.
\n\t  (2) Appointments  to the  service shall be made on
\n\t  the rotational  system, the first vacancy shall be
\n\t  filled from  the list\t of officers  of the  Nyayik
\n\t  Sewa, the  second vacancy shall be filled from the
\n\t  list of direct recruits (and so on), the remaining
\n\t  vacancies shall  thereafter be filled by promotion
\n\t  from the list of the officers of the Nyayik Sewa:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided\t that\tfor  so\t  long\tas  suitable
\n\t  officers are\tavailable  from\t the  cadre  of\t the
\n\t  Judicial Magistrate  appointments to\tthe  service
\n\t  shall be made in such a way that the second, fifth
\n\t  and eighth  (and so on), vacancies shall be filled
\n\t  from the list of Judicial Magistrates.
\n\t  (3) Appointment  for\ttemporary  vacancies  or  in
\n\t  officiating capacity shall be made by the Governor
\n\t  in consultation  with the  Court from\t amongst the
\n\t  members of the Nyayik Sewa:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided\t that\tfor  so\t  long\tas  suitable
\n\t  officers are\tavailable  from\t the  cadre  of\t the
\n\t  Judicial Magistrates,\t appointments  on  temporary
\n\t  vacancies or in officiating
\n410<\/span>
\n\t       capacity shall  be made\tin consultation with
\n\t       the   Court   from   amongst   the   Judicial
\n\t       Magistrates according  to the quota fixed for
\n\t       that source under these rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Provided further  that for\tso  long  as
\n\t       such members  of the  Judicial Service as are
\n\t       considered  suitable   for  appointments\t  on
\n\t       temporary   vacancies   or   in\t officiating
\n\t       capacity, are  not  available  in  sufficient
\n\t       number, the Governor in consultation with the
\n\t       Court may  fill in  not more than 50 per cent
\n\t       of such\tvacancies from\tamongst the officers
\n\t       of the cadre of Judicial Magistrates.
\n\t       (4)  The\t  appointments\tshall\tbe  made  on
\n\t       rotational system-the  first vacancy shall be
\n\t       filled from  the\t list  of  officers  of\t the
\n\t       Nyayik Sewa,  the  second  vacancy  shall  be
\n\t       filled from  the list of Judicial Magistrates
\n\t       (and so on).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Rule  22 the  phrase used is “to make appointment to
\nthe Service  on the occurrence of substantive vacancies” and
\nit was\tcontended on the one side that substantive vacancies
\ndoes not  mean permanent vacancies whereas on the other hand
\nit was contended that it only means permanent vacancies. The
\nsubstantive vacancy  has not  been defined  in the Rules but
\nproviso to  Rule 8  which has  been quoted  above speaks  of
\npermanent vacancies  and temporary posts. In fact the scheme
\nof the\tRules clearly  indicates that  there  are  permanent
\nposts  and   temporary\talso   which  are  created  to\tmeet
\ncontingency and\t it may\t in due course be made permanent. It
\ntherefore could\t not be\t doubted that when appointment under
\nRule 22\t is  contemplated  in  the  service  of\t substantive
\nvacancies, it  may be  both temporary  or permanent  but the
\nvacancy must be in the cadre. It could not be doubted than a
\nperson could  only be  confirmed when  a permanent  post  is
\navailable for him.\n<\/p>\n
     Different procedure  is provided  for appointment\tto a
\ntemporary  vacancy  and\t to  a\tpermanent  vacancy.  It\t was
\ncontended that\tif an  officer is  promoted  to\t fill  in  a
\ntemporary post\tit is  done without  following the procedure
\ni.e. selection\tbut there  is nothing  to indicate as to how
\nand when  such appointments were considered and appointed on
\nprobation in  a substantive  post. Unfortunately  the record
\nproduced by  the High Court does not indicate this. What has
\nbeen done it appears is that for purpose of seniority a date
\nhas been  given and  this has been done arbitrarily as there
\nis no  reason as to why the seniority should be counted from
\nthe date alone. What appears from the scheme of the Rules as
\nprovided in clause (3) of Rule 22 is, that appointment to
\n411<\/span>
\ntemporary vacancies  shall be made only from the Nyayik Sewa
\nand as\tand  when  a  substantive  vacancy  arises  and\t the
\nprocedure for  selection is to be followed, the officers who
\nare appointed  to fill\tin the\ttemporary  posts  should  be
\nconsidered first  and appointed\t on probation  if found fit,
\nbut it appears that it has not been made clear as to how and
\nwhen this  was done  nor it is clearly stated as to what was
\nthe number  of temporary  posts created and when those posts
\nbecame permanent and in our opinion the High Court will have
\nto examine  the matter\tin the\tlight of  the scheme  of the
\nRules as  discussed above.  Probation has  been provided  in
\nRule 23 which reads:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) All persons shall on appointment to the service in
\n     substantive  vacancies  be\t placed\t on  probation.\t The
\n     period of\tprobation shall, in each case, be two years,
\n     provided that  the period for which an officer has been
\n     continuously  officiating\t immediately  prior  to\t his
\n     appointment may  be taken\tinto account for the purpose
\n     of computing the period of probation.
\n     (2) (a)  The Court\t may, in  special cases,  extend the
\n     period of probation upto a specified date:
\n\t  Provided that\t the total period of probation shall
\n     not ordinarily exceed three years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  An   order  sanctioning\t such  extension  of
\n     probation shall  specify whether  or not such extension
\n     shall count for increment in the time-scale.
\n     (3) If it appears to the court at any time during or at
\n     the end  of the period of probation, or extended period
\n     of probation,  as the  case may  be, that a probationer
\n     has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or has
\n     otherwise failed  to give\tsatisfaction,  it  may\tmake
\n     recommendation to\tthe appointing\tauthority  whereupon
\n     the appointing  authority may revert the probationer to
\n     his substantive  post, if any, or if he does not hold a
\n     lien on any post, his services may be dispensed with.
\n\t  (4) A\t person whose services are dispensed with or
\n     who  is  reverted\tunder  sub-rule\t (3)  shall  not  be
\n     entitled to any compensation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
412<\/span><\/p>\n
This clearly  shows that  normally the\tperiod of  probation
\nshall be  2 years  and in computing this period of probation
\nan officer who has been continuously officiating immediately
\nprior to  his appointment  on probation\t will also  be taken
\ninto account  for the  purpose of  computing the  period  of
\nprobation and  it has  been further  provided that period of
\nprobation in any event shall not exceed three years.\n<\/p>\n
     Much  controversy\t was  raised  about  Rule  26  which
\nprovides for  fixing the seniority wherein in the proviso it
\nhas been provided:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Provided that  in the  case\tof  a  promotee\t the
\n\t  maximum period  of continuous\t officiation in\t the
\n\t  service shall\t not, for the purpose of determining
\n\t  seniority exceed three years immediately preceding
\n\t  the date of confirmation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was\tcontended that\tin the\tcase of promotees even if he
\nhas been  continuously officiating  for more  than  3  years
\nstill for  purpose of  computing seniority only 3 years will
\nbe counted according to this proviso. But this appears to be
\nconsistent with\t Rule 23  where it  has been  provided\tthat
\ntotal period  of probation  shall not  ordinarily  exceed  3
\nyears. In.  fact the  contention raised\t on  behalf  of\t the
\npetitioners was\t that they  were officiating  in  the  posts
\nbefore these  rules were  brought into\tforce but  still for
\ncomputing their seniority only 3 years have been counted but
\nin view\t of what we have held earlier in respect of posts -:
\navailable before  the Rules  of 1975  came into\t force, this
\nquestion will  not be  of any  consequence.  In\t fact  these
\nprinciples of  seniority will  only apply  to the promotions
\nmade after  these rules came into force i.e. in 1975 and the
\nscheme of  the Rules  appears to  be that  if  a  person  is
\nappointed to  officiate in  the Higher Judicial Service, his
\ncase for  confirmation normally\t will be considered within 3
\nyears and  either he  will be  confirmed or will be reverted
\nand this  scheme of  these Rules  therefore expect  that  an
\nofficer who  has been  promoted his case must be examined by
\nthe High  Court within\tthree years  and decide\t whether the
\nofficer deserves  to be confirmed or deserves to be reverted
\nand it is in this view of the matter it appears that in Rule
\n23 it  has been\t provided that period of probation shall not
\nordinarily exceed  3  years.  Similarly\t in  Rule  26  while
\nproviding the  principles of  counting seniority it has been
\nspecifically provided  that in\tcase  of  promotee  officers
\ncontinuous officiation\teven if it is for more than 3 years,
\nonly three  years will\tbe counted for purpose of seniority.
\nThis itself  contemplates that\tsuch an\t occasion shall\t not
\narise when a person may be officiating for more than 3 years
\nand still his case has not been considered for confirmation.
\nIn fact not much controversy has been placed before us
\n413<\/span>
\nabout appointments after the rules came into force. As it is
\nordinarily expected  that if  these Rules  were brought into
\nforce the appointments to the Higher Judicial Service either
\non the\tbasis of  direct recruitment  or  on  the  basis  of
\npromotion must\thave been in accordance with these rules and
\nit  is\t expected  that\t  the  probation,  confirmation\t and
\nseniority must\thave been  looked into\tby  the\t High  Court
\nstrictly in  accordance with  these rules.  It appears\tthat
\nsome amount  of controversy  has been  raised as  even after
\nthese rules  were brought into force some officers continued
\nto be officiating and it appears that while fixing seniority
\nin the\tprovisional list which has been notified by the High
\nCourt, the  proviso to Rule 8 which we have quoted above and
\nthe principle that all posts before these rules were brought
\ninto force,  will have to be filled in by the promotees, was
\nnot kept in view. Having gone through these Rules it appears
\nthat the  contention advanced  by the petitioners in respect
\nof proviso  to Rule 26 about seniority does not appear to be
\njustified. We  therefore feel that from the date these Rules
\nhave been brought into force, the High Court must have given
\neffect to these Rules. But in view of what we have discussed
\nearlier about the appointments on the posts available before
\nthese Rules were brought into force and to fill in temporary
\nposts, we  feel that  the matter  will have  to be  examined
\nafresh by  the High Court. So far as posts available on 10th
\nMay 1974  plus 31  posts are  concerned they will have to be
\nfilled in only by promotees as we have discussed earlier and
\nalso in view of proviso to Rule 8 and after doing it examine
\nthe cases  of promotion\t and direct  recruitment  after\t the
\ncoming into force of these Rules and the vacancies available
\nand after  considering the  cases in  accordance with  these
\nRules the  High Court will prepare afresh the seniority list
\nwhich may  be notified\tso that if any objections are there.
\nthey may  be placed for determination in accordance with the
\nRules  and  in\tthe  light  of\tthe  discussions  above.  We
\ntherefore allow\t the petition  partly and  dispose it  of as
\nstated above.  In the  circumstances of\t the case, we direct
\nthat parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t   Petitions partly allowed.\n414<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 260, 1988 SCR (1) 398 Author: G Oza Bench: Oza, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: P.K. DIXIT AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATF OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1987 BENCH: OZA, G.L. (J) BENCH: OZA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-92083","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\"},\"wordCount\":5000,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\",\"name\":\"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987","datePublished":"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987"},"wordCount":5000,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987","name":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-07T18:35:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-dixit-and-ors-vs-statf-of-u-p-ors-on-8-october-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K. Dixit And Ors vs Statf Of U.P. & Ors on 8 October, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=92083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92083\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}