Order

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.

2. 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’. His confidential record was good and no adverse remarks were ever communicated to him. His performance at the interview was also good and his name was in­cluded in the select list for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge.

3. 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 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.

4. The exclusion was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed before 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 District Judge. It is against this judgment 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.

5. 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 judg­ments Scrutiny Committee, that his confidential record was good, that no adverse remarks were communicated to him that his performance in the interview was good, and that his name was included in the select list prepared by the Interview Committee stand proved as they are not denied or contradicted by the respondents 1 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 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 shown 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. If the name of the petitioner is included in the select list prepared by 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 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