Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusPRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT
- Citation
- 1998 INSC 14
- Decided
- 13 January 1998
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Excluding the officer’s name without any material or disclosed reasons amounted to a violation of Articles 14 and 16, and the appeal was dismissed, allowing a notional promotion for pensionary benefits.
Summary
The respondent, a Civil Judge, was graded 'A' by the Judgment Scrutiny Committee, had a clean confidential record and performed well in the interview, leading to his inclusion in the interview committee's select list for promotion to Additional District Judge. The Full Court of the Bombay High Court later excluded his name from the final list sent to the government, without recording any reasons or providing material to justify the exclusion. The respondent challenged this exclusion in a writ petition, and the High Court held that the exclusion was made without any material and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State of Maharashtra, the High Court and the Chief Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, but the respondent had retired before the appeal was decided. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's finding of a violation of constitutional principles, dismissed the appeal, and ordered that the respondent be notionally promoted to the post of Additional District Judge to enable him to receive pension benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the exclusion of the officer's name from the final promotion list without recording or disclosing any reasons violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the High Court is obligated to disclose the reasons for exclusion in its minutes or to the court.
- Whether the appeal can be entertained after the officer's superannuation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
judicial promotionservice lawArticles 14 and 16fairness in selectionconfidential recordadditional district judgeadministrative law
Judgment
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. A
v.
PRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT
. JANUARY 13, 1998
B
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Service Law :
Judicial Officer-Promotion-State of Maharashtra-Civil Judge, C
Senior Division-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate-Consideration for promotion
as Additional District Judge-Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorising
the officer as Grade 'A '-Confidential record. good-No adverse remarks
ever conveyed to him-Performance at interview good-Name included in
select list for promotion as Additional District Judge-However, name of
-< officer excluded by full court from the final list sent to Government for D
• appointment-Writ petition filed by the Officer allowed by Division Bench of
the High Court, holding that in the absence of any material Placed before
it, decision of High Court in excluding the name of the officer suffers form
lack of consideration or application of mind to relevant criteria for promotion
and the decision was clearly violative for Articles I 4 and I 6 of the E
Constitution of India-Appeal-Meanwhile officer superannuated-Held
D(vision Bench was right in recording the findings-Appeal dismissed so
that the officer may be promoted notionally to the post of Additional District
Judge and may get pensionary benefits on that basis-The question whether
it was not necessary either to record any reason in the Minutes of the Full
Court meeting or to disclose those reasons to the Court on the judicial side, F
left open to be decided in appropriate case-Constitution of India-Articles
14 and 16.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6224of1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20/24.4.90 of the Bombay High G
Court in W.P. No. 2464of1987.
D. M.Nargolkar for the Appellants.
Uday Umesh Lalit, Makarand D.Adkar, S.D.Singh and Sudhanshu Atreya,
for the Respondent. H
109
llO SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R.
A The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The Respondent No. I 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.
B 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. l 0.1986,
respondent No. I was called for interview. From the facts found by the High
Court it appears that the Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorised respondent
No. I as Grade 'A'. His confidential record was good and no adverse remarks
were ever communicated to him. His performance at the interview was also
C good and his name was included in the select list for promotion to the 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,
D 1987. The name of the respondent No. I was, however excluded from the list·
finally prepared by the Full Court for being forwarded to the State Govt. for >- .,.
appointment on 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
E 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 District Judge. It is against this judgment that the State of
F 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. I retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2nd
ofMay, 1990.
G 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 judgments by the
H judgments Scrutiny Committee, that his confidential record was good,
STA TE v. P. SINGH D. SINGH RAJ PUT 111
that no adverse remarks were communicated to him that his performance A
in the interview was good, and that his name was in included in the
select list prepared by the Interview Committee stand proved as they
are not denied or contradicted by the respondents ! and 2 although
time was taken and was granted by us after the hearing commenced
to enable them to file an additional affidavit on behalf of the
respondents I and 2. In fact it is categorically stated before us that
B
the respondents I and 2 do not want to file any additional documents
in the instant case. It is also not shown to us by producing necessary
material from the records that the above averments of the petitioner
are incorrect.
c
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.
If the name of the petitioner is included in the select list prepafred by D
the Interview Committee it would also substantiate the 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 judgments E
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 Discrict
Judges.
F
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 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, G
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 Scruitiny Committee before he is selected for Scruitiny
of his judgments and thereafter by the Interview Committee, which H
•
i
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998) I S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 I and 2 have not denied his averments,
that he has received grade 'A' to his judgments, the very fact that the
Judgments Scrutiny Committee has [included his name in the list of
c 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 Committee has included
his name in its select list shows that his performance at the interview
was good apart from the fact that as already pointed out, since the
Intervie\v Committee applies all the criteria, referred to above, he also
D satisfied by inclusion of his name in its select list, 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
E four comers of the criteria for promotion laid down by the High Court
in its guidelines the name ofthe 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
F material in the return filed by the respondents I and 2 and when no
material is even otherwise brought to out notice during the hearing
. of this petition, which has prompted the High Court in its Chamber
meeting to exclude 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
G 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 guidelines such as the grades given to the judgments
of the candidates by the Judgments Scrutiny Committee assessment
of their work and conduct as per their confidential reports and in
H particular if there are adverse entries communicated to them the remarks
STATE v. P. SINGH D. SINGH RAJ PUT 113
if any about them in the report of the District Judge, their performance A
.--,' 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 B
the meeting so that it can be inferred from the same that in its meeting
the High Court has applied its mind 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 merely state vaguely C
that there was full 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 I and 2 to show that the said decision is based
upon relevant data and the relevant criteria.
D
To conclude, in the absence of any material being placed before
us, we have no other alternative but to hold after taking into
consideration the above facts and circumstances that the decision of
the High Court lo 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/our corners of the relevant [Acriteria discussed above. E
At any rate from the above facts and circumstances there is no doubt
in our minds that the decision of the High Court in excludi~g the
name of the petitioner from the select list for promotion to the post
of the Additional District Judge suffers from lack of consideration or
application of mind to the aforesaid relevant criteria for promotion F
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 I6 of the
Constitution of India."
(Emphasis supplied) G
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 H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1998] l S.C.R.
A 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
B necessary either to record any reason in the Minutes of the Full Court
meeting or to disclose those reasons to the court on 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
C 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 anci we see no reason to differ.
But this is today only of academic interest as respondent No._1 retired
D from service more than seven years ago. Leaving the question open tp 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 pensiimary benefits on that basis. The application for intervention is
rejected. No costs.
E R.P. Appeal dismissed.
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "judicial promotion"Sign in to search