Jagdish Chandra Sharma Vs. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through its Registrar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 398-399 of 1999
Petitioner: Jagdish Chandra Sharma
Respondent: Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Through its Registrar & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 398-399 of 1999
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 14, 16 – Adverse entries – Entries for the years 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1989-90, made adverse – Promotion with
Held:
Validity challenged – High Court rejecting plea – Officer consid-ered for grant of selection grade with others – Not recommended till August 1995 – Administrative Committee then recommending grant of selection grade in 1998 retrospectively from 6.10.1995. Held that orders are not to be interfered with. But since he was recommended for grant of selection grade w.e.f. 6.10.95. High Court should consider his promotion ignoring adverse entries, which existed prior to said date. (Paras 2 to 4)
Held –
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Appellant joined service as a Munsif in 1976 after completion of the training period. He was later on promoted as a Civil Judge and posted at Dehradun with effect from 27.2.1986. While he was serving at Dehradun, certain adverse entries came to be made against him on 27.10.1987, against which he filed a representa-tion. Those adverse entries pertained to the year 1986-87. While his representation was still pending, more adverse entries came to be made against him in the ACR for 1988-89 and 1989-90. He filed representations against those adverse entries also. Promo-tion of the appellant was withheld because of the adverse entries in his C.R. His representation against adverse entries came to be re-jected on 13.12.1990 and the review petition filed by the appell-ant was rejected on 23.10.1991. The appellant put in issue the correctness of adverse entries of 1986-87 and the validity of rejection of his representation through Writ Petition No. 7894/90. He also put in issue the correctness of adverse entries for 1988-89 and 1989-90 through Writ Petition No. 32118/91. In this writ petition the appellant also made a complaint against withholding of selection grade to him, which according to the appellant fell due with effect from 4.4.1989. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18.4.1994. The learned Single Judge did not quash the adverse entries pertaining to the year 1986-87 but quashed the adverse entries relating to 1988-89 and 1989-90. A direction was also issued by the learned Single Judge to the court to consider the case of the appellant for promotion as an Addl. District Judge but his prayer for grant of seniority retro-spectively was rejected. The order of the learned Single Judge resulted in the filing of two Special Appeals before the Division Bench, one appeal was filed by the appellant (S.A. No. 418/94) while the other was filed by the High Court (S.A. No. 669/94) vide judgment dated 25.5.1998, the Special Appeal filed by the High Court (S.A. No. 669/94) was allowed while the Special Appeal filed by the appellant (S.A. No. 418/94) was rejected. The Division Bench referred to certain judgments of this Court to hold that while exercising its power of judicial review, the court cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of the findings relating to recording of adverse entries in the annual confiden-tial rolls unless there has been some procedural irregularity or the action is otherwise vitiated by mala fides etc. The order of the learned Single Judge quashing adverse entries in the annual confidential rolls of 1988-89 and 1989-90 was set aside. Ag-grieved, the appellant is before us by special leave.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. After perusing the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, there is one aspect of the case to which we would like to advert to.
3. From the counter-affidavit filed by the High Court, we find that the case of the appellant was considered along with other judicial officers for grant of selection grade by the Administra-tive Committee of the court in its meeting held on 29.3.1991, but appellant was not found fit for grant of the same. His case for grant of selection grade again came up for consideration of the Administrative Committee at its meeting held on 28.8.1992, 20.4.1993 and 7.8.1995. The Administrative Committee during these three meetings also did not recommend grant of selection grade to the appellant. The case of the appellant was again considered on 22.5.1998 by the Administrative Committee when it recommended grant of selection grade to the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 6.10.1995. Despite this, the case of the appellant for promotion as Addl. District Judge was considered but the same was rejected in 1998.
4. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the next promotion from the post of Civil Judge is that of an Additional District Judge. He submits and in our opinion rightly, that since the appellant had been granted selection grade in 1998 retrospectively w.e.f. 6.10.1995, the High Court should consider his case for promotion as an Addition-al District Judge ignoring the adverse entries which have existed prior to 6.10.1995 and, in case, appellant is found fit, he should be promoted as an Additional District Judge. The submis-sion of Shri Yogeshwar Prasad appeals to us and we make an order accordingly. Let the case of the appellant for promotion as an Additional District Judge be considered ignoring adverse entries which existed prior to 6.10.1995 on its own merits.
5. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.
1. Appellant joined service as a Munsif in 1976 after completion of the training period. He was later on promoted as a Civil Judge and posted at Dehradun with effect from 27.2.1986. While he was serving at Dehradun, certain adverse entries came to be made against him on 27.10.1987, against which he filed a representa-tion. Those adverse entries pertained to the year 1986-87. While his representation was still pending, more adverse entries came to be made against him in the ACR for 1988-89 and 1989-90. He filed representations against those adverse entries also. Promo-tion of the appellant was withheld because of the adverse entries in his C.R. His representation against adverse entries came to be re-jected on 13.12.1990 and the review petition filed by the appell-ant was rejected on 23.10.1991. The appellant put in issue the correctness of adverse entries of 1986-87 and the validity of rejection of his representation through Writ Petition No. 7894/90. He also put in issue the correctness of adverse entries for 1988-89 and 1989-90 through Writ Petition No. 32118/91. In this writ petition the appellant also made a complaint against withholding of selection grade to him, which according to the appellant fell due with effect from 4.4.1989. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18.4.1994. The learned Single Judge did not quash the adverse entries pertaining to the year 1986-87 but quashed the adverse entries relating to 1988-89 and 1989-90. A direction was also issued by the learned Single Judge to the court to consider the case of the appellant for promotion as an Addl. District Judge but his prayer for grant of seniority retro-spectively was rejected. The order of the learned Single Judge resulted in the filing of two Special Appeals before the Division Bench, one appeal was filed by the appellant (S.A. No. 418/94) while the other was filed by the High Court (S.A. No. 669/94) vide judgment dated 25.5.1998, the Special Appeal filed by the High Court (S.A. No. 669/94) was allowed while the Special Appeal filed by the appellant (S.A. No. 418/94) was rejected. The Division Bench referred to certain judgments of this Court to hold that while exercising its power of judicial review, the court cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of the findings relating to recording of adverse entries in the annual confiden-tial rolls unless there has been some procedural irregularity or the action is otherwise vitiated by mala fides etc. The order of the learned Single Judge quashing adverse entries in the annual confidential rolls of 1988-89 and 1989-90 was set aside. Ag-grieved, the appellant is before us by special leave.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. After perusing the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, there is one aspect of the case to which we would like to advert to.
3. From the counter-affidavit filed by the High Court, we find that the case of the appellant was considered along with other judicial officers for grant of selection grade by the Administra-tive Committee of the court in its meeting held on 29.3.1991, but appellant was not found fit for grant of the same. His case for grant of selection grade again came up for consideration of the Administrative Committee at its meeting held on 28.8.1992, 20.4.1993 and 7.8.1995. The Administrative Committee during these three meetings also did not recommend grant of selection grade to the appellant. The case of the appellant was again considered on 22.5.1998 by the Administrative Committee when it recommended grant of selection grade to the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 6.10.1995. Despite this, the case of the appellant for promotion as Addl. District Judge was considered but the same was rejected in 1998.
4. Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the next promotion from the post of Civil Judge is that of an Additional District Judge. He submits and in our opinion rightly, that since the appellant had been granted selection grade in 1998 retrospectively w.e.f. 6.10.1995, the High Court should consider his case for promotion as an Addition-al District Judge ignoring the adverse entries which have existed prior to 6.10.1995 and, in case, appellant is found fit, he should be promoted as an Additional District Judge. The submis-sion of Shri Yogeshwar Prasad appeals to us and we make an order accordingly. Let the case of the appellant for promotion as an Additional District Judge be considered ignoring adverse entries which existed prior to 6.10.1995 on its own merits.
5. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of. We, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs.
