PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/01/1998
BENCH:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. WADHWA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.Saghir Ahmad
Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P.Wadhwa D. M.Nargolkar, adv. for the appellants Uday Umesh Lalit, Makarand D.Adkar, S.D.Singh, Sudhanshu Atreya, Advs., for the Respondent
ORDER
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
The Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division on 16.3.1972. He was promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate on 7.9.1983.
In 1986 process for making selection for purposes of promotion to the post of Additional District Judge was initiated by the High Court. On. 20.10.1986, respondent No. 1 was called for interview. From the facts found by the High Court it appears that the Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorised respondent No. 1 as Grade ’A’. communicated to him. His performance at the interview was also good and his name was included in the select list for promotion to post of Additional District Judge.
The select list prepared by the Interview Committee was considered by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court in its meeting on 2nd and 3rd May, 1987. The name of the respondent No.1 was, however excluded form the list finally prepared by the Full Court for being forwarded to the State Govt. for appointment of the post of additional District Judge.
The exclusion was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed before the Bombay the Bombay High Court which by the impugned judgment found that the petitioner’s name was included in the select list prepared by the Interview Committee but was excluded by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court for reasons which are not disclosed to the Court. The High Court ultimately by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and directed that the name of the petitioner be reconsidered for promotion to the post of Additional that the State of Maharashtra, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as also the Chief Justice have appealed to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, respondent No. 1 retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2nd of May, 1990.
The Bombay High Court in its judgment has recorded the findings as under:-
"In appreciating the
contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner, it has to be held that
the specific averments made by the
petitioner in his petition that he
had been given ‘A’ to his judgment
by the judgments Scrutiny
Committee, that his confidential
record was good, that no adverse
remarks were communicated to him
that his performance in the select
list prepared by the Interview
Committee stand proved as they are
not 2 although time was taken and
was granted by us after the hearing
commenced to behalf of the
respondents 1 and 2. In fact it is
categorically stated before us that
the respondents 1 and 2 do not want
to file any additional documents in
the instant case. It is also not
show to us by producing necessary
material from the records that the
above averments of the petitioner
are incorrect.
At any rate, it is clear that
the provisional select list
prepared by the Interview Committee
circulated for consideration in the
Chamber Meeting, which is brought
to our notice did include the name
of the petitioner, which was higher
up in the said list on the basis of
the inter se seniority of the
judicial officers selected by the
Interview Committee it would also
substantiate to above specific
averments made by him in his
petition particularly when they are
not denied and are not shown to be
wrong by bringing to our notice any
material in that regard, such as
his confidential records showing
any adverse entry being
communicated to him, grade granted
this judgment by the judgments
Scrutiny Committee, evaluation of
his performance at the interview,
the reports of District Judge, if
any against him, which reflects the
material necessary to satisfy the
requirement of the criteria laid
down for promotion to the posts of
the Additional District Judges.
It is pertinent to see in this
regard that after passing through
all the rigorous stages of the
process of selection discussed
above as per the guidelines laid
down by the High Court, the per the
guidelines laid down by the High
Court, the name of the petitioner
has found place in the select list
prepared for consideration in the
meeting of the Hon’ble Judges of
the High Court. It is clear from
the process of selection that the
confidential record of the
petitioner, the reports of the
District Judges about him and the
remarks, if any about him by the
Honourable Judges of the High Court
who have heard appeals from their
decisions have been examined twice,
first by the Judgments Scrutiny
Committee before he is selected for
Scrutiny of his judgments and
thereafter by the Interview
Committee, which takes into
consideration all the above factors
beside the rating, to his judgments
and his performance at the
Interview. Unless otherwise shown
it has to be presumed that there is
nothing against him in his
confidential reports the report of
the District Judges and/or the
remarks, if any, of Honourable
judges of this Court who have heard
appeals against this decision but
on the contrary as demonstrated by
the process of selection then show
his suitability and qualify him for
selection para 44A). As regards the
rating given to his judgment apart
from the fact that the respondent 1
and 2 have not denied his
averments, the very fact that he
Judgments Scrutiny Committee has
[included his name in the list of
the candidates to be called for
interview shows that his judgments
are of such quality and standard,
which qualify him for being called
for interview. Similarly the fact
that the Interview was good apart
from the fact that as already
pointed out, since the Interview
Committee applies all the criteria,
referred to above, he also
satisfied by all the criteria
adopted for promotion to the post
of Additional District Judge under
the guidelines of the High Court.
It is in the context of the
above facts and circumstances that
we fail to see as to on what basis
or material which has to be within
the four corners of the criterial
for promotion laid down by the High
Court in its guidelines the name of
the petitioner who is senior in the
inter se seniority of the judicial
officer selected by the Interview
Committee is excluded by the High
Court in the final select list
prepared by it in its Chamber
Meeting, particularly when there is
unfortunately no material in the
return filed by the respondents 1
and 2 and when no material is even
otherwise brought to out notice
during the hearing of this
petition, which has prompted the
name of the petitioner. In fact, it
is expected that when the High
Court in its meeting has to
consider, particularly
independently as urged on its
behalf, the question of promotion
to the post of the Additional
District Judge, atleast a synopsis
of the relevant material considered
by its Committees in terms of
criteria for selection laid down in
its judgments of the candidates by
the Judgments Scrutiny Committee
assessment of their work and
conduct as per their confidential
reports and in particular if there
are adverse entries communicated to
them the remarks if any about them
in the report of the District
Judge, their performance at the
interview held by the Interview
Committee and other relevant
material, if any not considered by
the Interview Committee or which
has escaped its attention in the
light of the above criteria, which
any of the Honourable judge want to
be taken into consideration in the
Chamber Meeting should be
circulated to the Honourable judge
before the meeting so that it can
be inferred form the same that in
its meeting the High Court has
applied its mint to the relevant
material in the light of the
relevant criteria adopted in its
guidelines.
It is only the resolution of
the Chamber meeting which is placed
before us. The said resolution is
too general and frank discussion in
the meeting upon the list prepared
by the Interview Committee but does
not refer to any material on which
it is based. The said resolution
itself is thus of no assistance to
the respondents 1 and 2 to show
that the said decision is based
upon relevant data and the relevant
criteria.
To conclude, in the absence of
any material being placed before
us, we have not other alternative
but to hold after taking into
consideration the above facts and
circumstances that the decision of
the High Court to exclude from the
final list the name of the
petitioner which was included in
the select list of the Interview
Committee is not within the four
corners of the relevan [Acriteria
discussed above. At any rate from
the above facts and circumstances
there is no doubt in our minds that
the decision of the High Court in
excluding the name of the post of
the Additional District judge
suffers from lack of consideration
or application of mind to the
aforesaid relevant criteria for
promotion to the post of the
Additional District judge and the
relevant data relative thereto if
not from extraneous consideration.
The said decision is, therefore,
clearly violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of
India." (Emphasis supplied)
From the above it will be seen that the reasons for excluding the name of the petitioner from the select list by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court were not disclosed to the Division Bench at the time of the hearing of the writ petition nor was any relevant material placed before the Division Bench on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion as to why the petitioner who had been selected at the earlier stages was excluded from being included in the final list prepared by the High Court for being forwarded to the State Govt. for making promotion to the post of Additional District judge.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that it was not necessary either to record any reason in the Minutes of the Full Court meeting or to disclose those reasons to the judicial side. This is in our opinion, preposterous as the argument that it is not obligatory for the High Court to disclose reason why an officer was not proposed to be promoted when he had already been selected, runs counter to the spirit of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. At least this argument was not expected from a high judicial body like the Bombay High Court which is before us today as a litigant. The Division Bench was, in our opinion, right in recording the findings extracted above and we see no reason to differ.
But this is today only of academic interest as respondent No.1 retired from service more than seven years ago. Leaving the question open to be decided in some other case, we dismiss the appeal so that the respondent may be promoted notionally to the post of Additional District judge and may get atleast pensionary benefits on that basis. The application for intervention is rejected. No costs.