- (1.) The applicants are the judicial officers in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service and posted as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates in the city of Mumbai. The applicants are aggrieved only against para 31 of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of All India Judges' Assn. V/s. Union of India. Para 31 of the said decision runs as under: "As we have already mentioned, the Shetty Commission had recommended that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates should be in the cadre of District Judges. In our opinion, this is neither proper nor practical. The appeals from orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be heard by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Sessions Judge. If both the Additional Sessions Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate belong to the same cadre, it will be paradoxical that any appeal from one officer in the cadre should go to another officer in the same cadre. If they belong to the same cadre, as recommended by the Shetty Commission, then it would be possible that the junior officer would be acting as an Additional Sessions Judge while a senior may be holding the post of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It cannot be that against the orders passed by the senior officer it is the junior officer who hears the appeal. There is no reason given by the Shetty Commission as to why the post of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate be manned by the District Judge, especially when as far as the posts of the Chief Judicial Magistrates are concerned, whose duties are on a par with those of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Shetty Commission has recommended, and in our opinion rightly, that they should be filled from amongst Civil Judges (Senior Division). Considering the nature and duties of the Chief Judicial Magistrates and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, the only difference being their location, the posts of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate have to be equated and they have to be placed in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). We order, accordingly."
(2.) The applicants contend that by virtue of the aforesaid decision, they would be reverted from the present posts which they are holding.
(3.) We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and do not find any merit in the contention. What this Court has held in para 31 is that the post of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate are to be filled in from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) and not by the officers working in the Higher Judicial Service. The question of the applicants' reversion does not arise at all. By the aforesaid judgment, the applicants who are working in the Higher Judicial Service are not going to be reverted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division). The applicants shall continue to be the members of the Higher Judicial Service.;