Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUNIL GAUR, JJ.
SUJATA KOHLI - Petitioner
Versus
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ORS - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3157 of 2015
Decided on : 21-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose with Mr. Rhishabh Jetley & Mr. Dhanjai Rana, Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv.
Headnote:
FULL COURT RESOLUTION - DHJS OFFICERS - APPOINTMENT AS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - CRITERIA - ACR GRADING - VALIDITY - UNIFORMITY - TRANSPARENCY - PREDICTABILITY - GUIDELINES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a senior DHJS officer, challenged the Full Court resolution evolving a new criteria for appointment to the position of District and Sessions Judge, requiring every eligible officer to have been graded 'A' grade in the annual confidential reports (ACRs) for the previous five years, as on the date when the consideration for filling the post is to take place. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (the "Rules") as amended to date, which is a residuary provision enabling resort to the service rules applicable to the Indian Administrative Service in respect of whatever is not provided for in the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned Full Court resolutions were not arbitrary and the challenge to Rule 27 also failed. The petitioner's grievance that she was arbitrarily denied knowledge of the ACR gradings of other officers was also without merit. The court directed that the directions in the preceding para of this judgment with respect to formulation of criteria for uniform grading of judicial officers, be suitably incorporated in the form of guidelines, for future implementation.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Full Court resolutions were arbitrary and unreasonable? 2. Whether Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (the "Rules") as amended to date, was unconstitutional? 3. Whether the petitioner was arbitrarily denied knowledge of the ACR gradings of other officers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The impugned Full Court resolutions were not arbitrary and unreasonable as they were evolved objectively and the petitioner failed to demonstrate why such criteria were flawed or unreasonable. The court also held that there was no legal requirement for publication of revision of promotional criteria. 2. The challenge to Rule 27 also failed as it did not vest any arbitrary power and the guidelines and criteria evolved for uniform application, to promote greater efficiency, were reasonable and valid. 3. The petitioner's grievance that she was arbitrarily denied knowledge of the ACR gradings of other officers was also without merit as ACR gradings were made known only to the concerned individual and the petitioner's grouse that she was kept in the dark about others' better performance could not be considered as an adverse remark against her.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of in the above terms without order on costs.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The petitioner, a senior Delhi Higher Judicial service (“DHJS”) officer, has preferred these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, complaining violation of her fundamental right to equality before law by the adoption of a resolution by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court on 28.4.2009 evolving a new criteria for appointment to the position of District and Sessions Judge. The resolution (hereafter “the impugned resolution”) requires every eligible officer to have been graded 'A' grade in the annual confidential reports (ACRs) for the previous five years, as on the date when the consideration for filling the post is to take place. The Delhi High Court has been arrayed as respondent (hereafter referred to as “the establishment”). The Full Court resolution was modified twice: on 15.1.2010 and again on 27.1.2011. The petitioner also challenges the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (the "Rules) as amended to date, which is a residuary provision enabling resort to the service rules applicable to the Indian Administrative Service in respect of whatever is not provided for in the Rules, and in the light of that the Full Court Resolutions impugned in this case.
2. The Petitioner joined Delhi Higher Judicial Services upon selection based on written examination and interview on 27th November 2002. She was ranked third in the merit list. With resignation of the candidate who stood second in the said merit list, she was ranked second in her batch. On 19th December 2005, the High Court confirmed the petitioners’ appointment in substantive permanent capacity w.e.f. 25.11.2004. The petitioner urges that in 2009, the impugned Full Court resolution was adopted which mandated that a member of DHJS, to be considered for the post of District and Sessions Judge ought to possess at least 2A gradings in her ACRs and 3 B+ gradings, for the immediately preceding 5 years, in relation to the year under consideration, following the criteria provided for posts equivalent to that of a District Judge in the Indian Administrative Service under the Residuary Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970. It is stated that in 2010, the system was again changed and the requirement, of an A in each of the previous 5 years was adopted, following the, revised criteria in the IAS service for promotion to a post equivalent to that of a District and Sessions Judge, thus adversely affecting the progression prospects of many Additional District Judges and now it had affected the petitioner too, who had otherwise been already granted the super time scale.
3. The Petitioner had been assessed "B+" (Good) in her ACRs for last several years. She submits that on 24 August 2013, High Court granted the Super time scale to the petitioner amongst other officers, w.e.f. 01.05.2013, (against one of the deputation vacancies). Later on the same was made against ex cadre vacancy. Between May 2011 and January 2014, the Petitioner was assigned the cases under Hindu Marriage Act and other matrimonial matters. During the course that tenure, she disposed of 2589 matters, out of which she with her initiative reconciled and settled as many as 478 disputes amicably. It is stated that in November 2014, the batch of 2002 DHJS officers entered the zone of consideration for appointment/selection as District and Sessions Judge/Principal Judge Family Court. The petitioner was second in her batch and is an honest and hard working officer was expecting to be appointed/selected. She was appreciated for her dedication and hard work during the interaction sessions held for ACR appraisals. Petitioner's judicial work done and the disposals speak for themselves. In this background, she urges that in November 2014, it came to her knowledge that the impugned revised criteria of securing 'A' grade in the last
