2022 Supreme(SC) 126

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Ms. X – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2018
Decided on : 10-02-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Transfer Policy incorporated by MP High Court is only a set of Guidelines for internal administration of District Judiciary issued by MP High Court – However, while exercising its functions on administrative side, MP High Court would also be a State within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India.
(2) A Judicial Officer while discharging his/her duties, is expected to be independent, fearless, impassionate and non-impulsive – But a Judicial Officer is also a human being.
(3) Legitimate Expectation – Requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of principle of non-arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of rule of law – Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process.
(4) Ratio decidendi – A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides – Every judgment must be read as applicable to particular facts, proved or assumed to be proved – Generality of expressions found there, is not intended to be exposition of whole law, but governed and qualified by particular facts of case in which such expressions are to be found.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Transfer – Judicial Service – Sexual harassment of lady Judicial Officer by a Judge – Petitioner is not pressing present matter on the ground of sexual harassment by Justice ‘A’, but is limiting her submissions with regard to transfer order being illegal and mala fide, and consequent resignation amounting to constructive dismissal – Transfer Policy incorporated by MP High Court is only a set of Guidelines for internal administration of District Judiciary issued by MP High Court – However, while exercising its functions on administrative side, MP High Court would also be a State within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India – Though Transfer Policy may not be enforceable in law, but when Transfer Policy has been framed by MP High Court for administration of District Judiciary, every Judicial Officer will have a legitimate expectation that such a Policy should be given due weightage, when cases of Judicial Officers for transfer are being considered – Transfer of petitioner was effected mid-term though she could have very well been transferred in general transfers – Neither procedure as prescribed under Clause 9 of Transfer Policy of obtaining comments from District Judge and Portfolio Judge were complied with, nor Transfer Committee considered provisions of Clause 9(a) of Transfer Policy – Petitioner had a legitimate expectation in view of Clause 10 of Transfer Policy to have her case considered for posting at any of 4 places in event her request for retention at then present posting was not considered and as such, she made second representation – Petitioner has established that her transfer order was in contravention of Transfer Policy and that rejection of her two representations, in addition of being contrary to Transfer Policy, were also arbitrary – Respondent No.1 has utterly failed to discharge its burden – Respondent No.1 has failed to take into consideration factors which were required to be considered, while deciding representation of petitioner and had taken into consideration factors which were not relevant – Non-consideration of relevant material and consideration of extraneous material would come into realm of irrationality – An action which is arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable would be hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India. [Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 – Clauses 3(b) and 4] (Paras 11, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 50, 56 and 66)

(B) Service Law – Resignation – Judicial Service – Petitioner is not pressing present matter on the ground of sexual harassment by Justice ‘A’, but is limiting her submissions with regard to transfer order being illegal and mala fide, and consequent resignation amounting to constructive dismissal – A Judicial Officer while discharging his/her duties, is expected to be independent, fearless, impassionate and non-impulsive – But a Judicial Officer is also a human being – For considering as to whether resignation in present matter could be construed as voluntary or not, resignation cannot be considered in isolation, but all attendant circumstances will have to be taken into consideration – On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on other hand, was possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to place of posting – Reaction of a person to a particular situation would depend from person to person – No two individuals can be expected to respond identically to a same situation – Resignation letter in present case appears to be on account of exasperation and frustration actuated by a thought, that injustice was being meted out to her by very Institution of Judiciary – In some High Courts, a practice is followed, that whenever a Judicial Officer having good track record tenders his/her resignation, an attempt is made by Senior Judges of High Court to Counsel and persuade him/her to withdraw resignation – Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer – Losing a good Judicial Officer without counselling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and rethink, will not be in the interest of either Judicial Officer or Judiciary – It will be in interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all High Courts – Petitioner’s resignation from post of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gwalior cannot be construed to be voluntary and as such, order dated 17th July 2014, passed by respondent No. 2, thereby accepting resignation of petitioner, is quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner forthwith as an Additional District & Sessions Judge – Though petitioner would not be entitled to back wages, she would be entitled for continuity in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 15th July 2014. [Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 – Clauses 3(b) and 4] (Paras 71, 72, 79, 81, 84, 86 and 97)

(C) Doctrine – Legitimate Expectation – Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right – Failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary – Requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of principle of non-arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of rule of law – Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process – Whether expectation of claimant is reasonable or legitimate in context is a question of fact in each case – Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh, what would otherwise have been legitimate expectation of claimant – A bona fide decision of public authority reached in this manner would satisfy requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. (Para 40)

(D) Doctrine – Malice – State is under the obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice – in fact or in law – “Legal malice” or “malice in law” means something done without lawful excuse – It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite – Where malice is attributed to State, it can never be a case of malice or spite on part of State – It would mean exercise of statutory power for “purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended” – It means conscious violation of law to prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on part of authority to disregard rights of others. (Para 58)

(E) Precedent – Ratio decidendi – A decision is an authority only for what it actually decides – Every judgment must be read as applicable to particular facts, proved or assumed to be proved – Generality of expressions found there, is not intended to be exposition of whole law, but governed and qualified by particular facts of case in which such expressions are to be found – Ratio decidendi is a rule deducible from application of law to facts and circumstances of a case and not some conclusion based upon facts which may appear to be similar – One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Paras 93 and 94)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the order dated 11.01.2018 of Chief Justice of the High Court communicated on 25.1.18 of Madhya Pradesh passed after the Full Court Meeting, rejecting the application for reinstatement as violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 r/w. 233, 235 & 311 of the Constitution of India and Natural Justice; Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus declaring that the Petitioner's resignation from the post of Additional District Judge VIII, Gwalior dated 15.07.2014 amounts to constructive dismissal due to the employer's conduct which applies in the Statutory context where the term "Dismissal/dismissed" is used; Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the reinstatement of Petitioner as an Additional District and Sessions Judge from the date of her resignation i.e. 15.07.2014, with continuity in service at S. No 134 of the list of District Judges(Selection Grade) of the Gradation List according to Clause 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017, back wages according to Clause 3(b) of Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 and all service benefits and all consequential reliefs.

Findings of Court:

Valuable time and money is spent on training of a Judicial Officer. Losing a good Judicial Officer without counselling him/her and without giving him/her an opportunity to introspect and rethink, will not be in the interest of either Judicial Officer or the Judiciary. We find that it will be in interest of judiciary that such a practice is followed by all High Courts.

Result : Writ Petition Partly allowed.