http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES WELFAREASSOCIATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1988

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1322            1988 SCR  (3) 613  1988 SCC  Supl.  500     JT 1988 (2)   166  1988 SCALE  (1)799

ACT:      Delhi  Higher   Judicial  Service   Rules:   Additional District Judge-Refusal  of Selection  grade - Justiciability of.      Constitution of  India, 1950:  Articles  233  and  235- Judicial officer  -Promotion to  higher  grade/post-Made  on criteria of  merit-Junior officer  bound  to  supersede  his senior-Integrity  of   judicial  officer   -Great  asset  to administration of justice-To be given due consideration.

HEADNOTE:      The 2nd  petitioner,  a  member  of  the  Delhi  Higher Judicial Service and working as an Additional District Judge in a  writ petition  to this  Court, contended  that he  was directly  recruited   to  service   as  a  Scheduled  Castes candidate  and   that  the   High  Court  had  acted  in  an unreasonable manner  in refusing to grant selection grade to him on more than one occasion.      Disposing of the Writ Petition, ^      HELD: 1.  Where promotion  to higher  grade or  post is made on  the criteria of merit, many a time a junior officer is  bound  to  supersede  his  senior.  In  the  process  of assessment of  comparative merit,  supersession of  a senior officer may result. This cannot be helped.[614G-H]      In the  instant case,  the petitioner was considered on merit along  with  others,  and  as  the  High  Court  found officers junior to him suitable for grant of selection grade the petitioner  could not  be selected.  This Court finds no illegality in the High Court’s order. [615A]      2. Integrity  of a judicial officer is a great asset to administration of  justice. It  must be  given  due  weight. [615C]      3. The  petitioner in  the instant  case, comes  from a weaker section of the society and he has been found to be an honest officer.  This fact  needs  consideration.  The  High Court should consider the petitioner’s 614 case sympathetically for the grant of selection grade at the next selection. [615D]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5858 of 1983.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      G.L. Sanghi,  M.T. Siddiqi  and  Irfan  Ahmed  for  the Petitioners.      Anil Dev  Singh,  C.  Ramesh,  K.  Swami  and  Miss  A. Subhashini for the Respondents.      The following order of the Court was delivered:                          O R D E R      The Petitioner  is a  member of  Delhi Higher  Judicial Service, at  present working  as Additional  district Judge. The petitioner  was  directly  recruited  to  service  as  a Scheduled Castes  candidate. He has approached this Court by means of  this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution with a  grievance that  the High Court of Delhi has acted in an unreasonable  manner in refusing to grant selection grade to him  on more  than one occasion. A number of other allied questions were  raised during  the course  of arguments  but ultimately on  behalf of  the petitioner  only the grievance relating to the refusal of selection grade was pressed.      Having heard  learned counsel  for  the  parties  at  a length and  having perused  the records  and also the annual confidential reports  awarded to  the petitioner  and  other papers produced  on behalf  of the  High Court,  we find  it difficult to hold that the High Court has acted unreasonably in refusing  to grant  selection grade  to  the  petitioner. Admittedly grant  of selection  grade was  considered on the criteria of  merit to  the members  of Delhi Higher Judicial Service.  Whenever   a  post  in  the  selection  grade  was available the  High Court  considered the  petitioner  along with other officers but on a comparative assessment of merit of eligible  officers, it  granted selection  grade  to  the officers who  were junior  to the  petitioner  and  in  that process the  petitioner stood superseded. Where promotion to higher grade  or post is made on the criteria of merit, many a time  junior officer  is bound  to supersede his senior in the process  of assessment  of comparative  merit, which may result in  supersession of  a senior officer. This cannot be helped since  the petitioner’s  case was considered on merit along with others. and as 615 the High  Court found  officers  junior  to  the  petitioner suitable for  grant of  selection grade the petitioner could not be  selected. We  find no illegality in the High Court’s orders.      However, we  would like to refer one aspect which needs consideration. On  a perusal  of the  confidential character roll entries  and other  papers produced before us on behalf of the  High Court,  we find  that since  March 1979 to July 1980 the monthly statement of work done by the petitioner as assessed by the High Court on the basis of the report of the District Judge  shows that the High Court rated his work and conduct as  "good" and for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984- 85, 1985-86  and 1986-87 the petitioner has been awarded ’B’ grading. No  doubt he  has not  earned ’A’  grading but  the confidential reports  show that  he is  an  honest  officer. Integrity  of  a  judicial  officer  is  a  great  asset  to administration of  justice, it must be given due weight. The petitioner comes from a weaker section of the society and he has been  found to  be an  honest officer,  this fact  needs consideration. In our opinion the High Court should consider the petitioner’s  case  sympathetically  for  the  grant  of selection grade in the light of our observations at the next

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

selection.      Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, there will be no order as to costs. N.V.K.                            Petition disposed of. 616