http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

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                          O R D E R      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    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.