KAN SINGH, J—This is a plaintiffs appeal brought against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, dated 22-7-68 dismissing the plairjtiffs suit for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 12760.65 based on the ground that the order of his reversion dated 28-12-61 was unconstitutional having been passed in contravention of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.

2. The plaintiff who was in the Judicial Service of the former Jodhpur State came to be appointed as a Senior Civil and Additional Sessions Judge in the State of Rajasthan after it was formed. By order Ex. A/1 dated 25 1-68 the was, while working as Civil and additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, appointed as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. By the impugned order Ex A/2 he was reverted and posted as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the order of his reversion on the ground that it was passed in breach o|f the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was not afforded any opportunity to show cause against it vide Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The plaintiff averred that due to his reversion he had been deprived of the higher emoluments as well as of the higher grade attached to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges namely, Rs. 800-50-1000-50-1800; his salary as District Judge being Rs. 950/. According to the plaintiff, the order of reversion was bad also for the reason that person junior to him in the cadre of Civil and Additional Sessions Judges were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on the plaintiffs reversion. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 12760.65 as arrears of salary being the difference between the emoluments that were allowed to him as Civil and Additional Sessions Judge on his reversion and what he would have drawn a District and Sessions Judge, if he were not reverted.

3. The suit was contested by the State of Rajasthan. It was denied that the reversion of the plaintiff was in contravention of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. It was submitted that the plaintiff was afforded a chance to officiate as District and Sessions Judge, but he was not found fit for that higher post and consequently he was reverted to his substantive post. The defendant State averred that the work of the plaintiff was inspected by the then Chief Justice on 4-9-61 and as he was not satisfied about his work, the learned Chief Justice on his return from tour expressed his strong desire to revert the piaintiff to his substantive post. Further, according to the defendant-State, a few decisions given by the plaintiff were noticed by the High Court and they were found to be below the mark. As the Chief Justice thought that the plaintiff had not been able to give a good account of the opportunity afforded to him and he was found to be unfit to bear the responsibility of the senior Judicial post of the District and Sessions Judge, he was ordered to be reverted to his substantive post of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, according to the defendant State the order of the plaintiffs reversion was made not by way of punishment, but as a matter of course on inspection of his work.

4. A number of issues were framed by the learned Additional District Judge, but the main issue was whether the plaintiffs reversion from the post of officiating District and Sessions Judge to his substantive post of Civil and Additional Sessions Judge was in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The defendant placed on record the inspection note made by the then Chief Justice Shri Sarjoo Prosad on 4-9-51 (Ex. A/3), the minute recorded by Shri J. S. Ranawat who succeeded Shri Sarjoo Prosad (Ex. A/4), the order appointing the plaintiff as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Ganganagar (Ex A/1) and the impugned order of the plaintiffs reversion dated 28 12-61 (Ex. A/2).

5. On perusal of these documents the learned Additional District Judge observed that it was quite clear that the plaintiff was given

Click Here to Read the rest of this document