Back
2012 (1) Supreme 372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
N.C. Das — Petitioner(s)
versus
Gauhati High Court Thr. Registrar & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 31 of 2004
Decided on : 11-1-2012
Service Law- Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003- Interlocutory Application - Petitioner a member of Tripura Judicial Service (Grade II) holding the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura-Grievance of petitioner that he had been made to retire on attaining age of 58 years although superannuation age stood enhanced to 60 years- A bare perusal of Clause (B) of amended Rule 20 showed that High Court was empowered to assess and evaluate the record of a judicial officer for continued utility in service upto 60 years- Clause (B) had overriding effect over Clause (A) of Rule 20- This is clear from expression “Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (A)” with which Clause (B) begins- The mode and manner of assessment and evaluation of potential of continued utility is prescribed in Rule 20(B)(I) of the 2003 Rules- No legal flaw had been pointed out to the exercise undertaken by the High Court in respect of the assessment and evaluation of petitioner’s service for continued utility in service upto 60 years-Hence held that petitioner was not entitled to relief claimed in Interlocutory Application -Interlocutory Application dismissed (Paras 10 to 12)
Facts of the Case :
A.Writ petition was filed by Petitioner a member of Tripura Judicial Service (Grade II) holding the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura herein in the instant case praying for diverse reliefs , including direction to High Court to incorporate “court suitability test” in ‘2003 Rules’ and that petitioner should be considered for promotion on post of Grade-I- Court issued limited notice on question of not making any provision for judging the suitability of Judicial Officers for purposes of promotion in the 2003 Rules and relaxation in the age of qualifying service.
B. Interlocutory Application was filed by petitioner praying to quash Memo issued by High Court and for direction to High Court to consider the case of petitioner for benefits of assured Career Progress in accordance with recommendations of Shetty Commission Report. Grievance of petitioner that he had been wrongly denied promotion in July 2003 although his juniors were accorded promotion.
Findings of the Court :
A.Evidence on record that in last three years immediately preceding date of consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion, his ACRs showed that he was not found fit for promotion. Based on the remarks in the ACRs of years 2000, 2001 and 2002 if the petitioner had been denied promotion in July 2003, such action could hardly be faulted.
B. The remarks in ACRs do enable the authority to assess comparative merit once the question of promotion arises when the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority. The adverse remarks were communicated to petitioner and these remarks continued to remain on record though the petitioner had submitted his representation/reply thereto. Be that as it may, in view of petitioner’s service record of years 2000, 2001 and 2002, it could not be said that he had been wrongly denied promotion to Grade-I.Writ petition was dismissed
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
The petitioner on the date of filing the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was a member of Tripura Judicial Service (Grade II) and was holding the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura. He has prayed for diverse reliefs in the Writ Petition, including the direction to the High Court to incorporate “court suitability test” in the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘2003 Rules’) and further direction that the petitioner should be considered for promotion on the post of Grade-I.
2. On February 3, 2004 this Court issued limit ed notice on the question of not making any provision for judging the suitability of Judicial Officers for the purposes of promotion in the 2003 Rules and relaxation in the age of qualifying service.
3. The petitioner has retired from service on December 31, 2006, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions Judge, Grade-II.
4. The petitioner made application being Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 2005 and prayed to quash the Memo dated June 7, 2005 issued by the Gauhati High Court and for direction to the Gauhati High Court to consider the case of the petitioner for the benefits of Assured Career Progress in accordance with the recommendations of Shetty Commission Report which was accepted by this Court in All India Judges’ Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,1 2002 (4) SCC 247.
5. On October 7, 2010, while disposing of Interlocutory Application No. 3 of 2005, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to challenge the order dated June 7, 2005 by which the benefits under Assured Career Progress were denied to him in appropriate proceedings. We are informed that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated June 7, 2005 pursuant to the above liberty.
6. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was wrongly denied promotion in July 2003 although his juniors were accorded promotion. He further submitted that in July 2003, the petitioner’s case for promotion ought to have been considered under the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘1974 Rules’). In this regard, he referred to Rule 7(1) of the 1974 Rules. Rule 7(1) of the 1974 Rules provides for qualifications for recruitment to the service in Grade-I and Grade-II. According to this Rule, appointment to the post of Grade-I and Grade-II by promotion from the next grade below shall be made on the ground of merit-cum-seniority. In the petitioner’s ACR of the year 2000, it has been recorded that he was not yet fit for promotion. Similar remarks have been recorded in 2001 and 2002 ACRs. Thus, in last three years immediately preceding the date of consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion, his ACRs show that he was not found fit for promotion. Based on the remarks in the ACRs of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 if the petitioner has been denied promotion in July 2003, such action can hardly be faulted. The remarks in ACRs do enable the authority to assess comparative merit once the question of promotion arises when the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority. It is pertinent to notice that the adverse remarks in the ACRs of 2000 and 2001 were communicated to the petitioner on November 28, 2002 and the adverse remarks for the year 2002 were communicated to him on May 19, 2003. The adverse remarks were thus communicated to the petitioner before July 29, 2003 and these remarks continued to remain on record though the petitioner had submitted his representation/reply thereto. Be that as it may, in view of the petitioner’s service record of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, it cannot be said that he has been wrongly denied promotion to Grade-I.
7. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner, also raised the grievance that the petitioner has been made to retire on December 31, 2006 on attaining the age of 58 years altho
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
