Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. Mathur, J.
HAR PRASAD GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1813 Of 1961
Decided On : 05/09/1962
U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - APPOINTMENT AND REVERSION OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH REVERSION ORDER - LEGALITY AND PROPRIETY OF REVERSION - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONFIRMATION OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES - DELAY IN CONFIRMATION - LOSS OF SENIORITY - PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS - CLAIM FOR MANDAMUS TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FROM A PARTICULAR DATE - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS TO RULE 20 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - CONFIDENTIALITY OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OR NON-CONFIRMATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - PRIVILEGE CLAIMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PETITIONER - PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING DOCUMENTS PERUSED BY COURT EX PARTE - POWER OF GOVERNOR TO APPOINT, POST, OR PROMOTE DISTRICT JUDGES IN CONSULTATION WITH HIGH COURT - MEANING OF "IN CONSULTATION" - REDUCTION IN RANK - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TEMPORARY OR OFFICIATING APPOINTMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 6 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 311 - PENAL CONSEQUENCES - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL, AND APPEAL) RULES - APPLICABILITY TO REVERSION - ARBITRARINESS OR DISCRIMINATION IN REVERSION ORDER - REASONABLE NOTICE FOR REVERSION - DELAY IN CONFIRMATION - LOSS OF SENIORITY - PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS - CLAIM FOR MANDAMUS TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FROM A PARTICULAR DATE - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS TO RULE 20 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - CONFIDENTIALITY OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OR NON-CONFIRMATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - PRIVILEGE CLAIMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PETITIONER - PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING DOCUMENTS PERUSED BY COURT EX PARTE - POWER OF GOVERNOR TO APPOINT, POST, OR PROMOTE DISTRICT JUDGES IN CONSULTATION WITH HIGH COURT - MEANING OF "IN CONSULTATION" - REDUCTION IN RANK - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TEMPORARY OR OFFICIATING APPOINTMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 6 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 311 - PENAL CONSEQUENCES - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL, AND APPEAL) RULES - APPLICABILITY TO REVERSION - ARBITRARINESS OR DISCRIMINATION IN REVERSION ORDER - REASONABLE NOTICE FOR REVERSION - DELAY IN CONFIRMATION - LOSS OF SENIORITY - PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS - CLAIM FOR MANDAMUS TO TREAT PETITIONER AS DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FROM A PARTICULAR DATE - VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS TO RULE 20 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - CONFIDENTIALITY OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OR NON-CONFIRMATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVANTS - PRIVILEGE CLAIMED BY STATE GOVERNMENT - INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS BY PETITIONER - PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING DOCUMENTS PERUSED BY COURT EX PARTE - POWER OF GOVERNOR TO APPOINT, POST, OR PROMOTE DISTRICT JUDGES IN CONSULTATION WITH HIGH COURT - MEANING OF "IN CONSULTATION" - REDUCTION IN RANK - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TEMPORARY OR OFFICIATING APPOINTMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 6 OF THE U.P. HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE RULES - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 311 - PENAL CONSEQUENCES - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL, AND APPEAL) RULES - APPLICABILITY TO REVERSION - ARBITRARINESS OR DISCRIMINATION IN REVERSION ORDER - REASONABLE NOTICE FOR REVERSION
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a District and Sessions Judge, challenged the order of the State Government reverting him to the substantive post of Civil and Sessions Judge. He also sought a writ of mandamus to treat him as having been appointed as District and Sessions Judge from a particular date and to confirm him in that position. The petitioner claimed that his reversion was illegal and violative of Articles 311 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of reversion was not illegal and did not contravene Articles 311 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the petitioner was reverted on the basis of the revised recommendation of the High Court and that there was no evidence of mala fide or discrimination on the part of the State Government or the Hon'ble Minister. The court also held that the petitioner suffered no injustice as a result of the delay in his confirmation and that he was entitled to all pension and other benefits admissible under the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of reversion of the petitioner to the substantive post of Civil and Sessions Judge was illegal or violative of Articles 311 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandamus to treat him as having been appointed as District and Sessions Judge from a particular date and to confirm him in that position? 3. Whether the petitioner suffered any injustice as a result of the delay in his confirmation? 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to all pension and other benefits admissible under the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of reversion was not illegal as it was passed on the basis of the revised recommendation of the High Court and there was no evidence of mala fide or discrimination on the part of the State Government or the Hon'ble Minister. 2. The petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus as he suffered no injustice as a result of the delay in his confirmation and he was entitled to all pension and other benefits admissible under the rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs on parties.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Har Prasad Gupta for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 13-3-1961 of the State of Uttar Pradesh (communicated to the petitioner under Annexure l to the affidavit) and for such other and suitable order or direction as may be just and proper. A request was also made for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to treat the petitioner as having been appointed as district and Sessions Judge in pursuance of Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service rules, 1953, as and from June 16, 1953, and to treat the petitioner as having been confirmed with effect from November 18, 1953, in the substantive vacancy caused on the retirement of Sri R. K. Chowdhary.
( 2 ) IT may at the very outset be observed that the present petition was filed on 13-7-1961 at the time the petitioner was in service and was posted at Bareilly as District and Sessions Judge, bareilly, but it could not be decided till his retirement. The petitioner retired from service on december 31, 1961, and is no longer in service. This fact shall be of importance in laying down whether the present is a case where this Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 3 ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected as a Munsif in the year 1928 as a result of the competitive examination held in the State and his position was above Mr. C. B. Kapoor. The petitioner was junior to late Sri R. K. Singhal. The petitioner was confirmed as munsif and later as Civil Judge retaining his original seniority. He was in due course confirmed as Civil and Sessions Judge in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service with effect from July 7, 1951. The order of seniority remained unaffected. He was appointed Additional District and sessions Judge of Meerut, Moradabad and Aligarh with effect from June 16, 1953, according to the petitioner, in a substantive vacan-cy, meaning thereby substantively; but according to the respondent, the appointment was in an officiating capacity, though on a substantive post. The respondents version is supported by documents on record and can be accepted. If the petition is read as a whole the position taken by the petitioner cannot be properly appreciated. It is said at one place that once the petitioner was appointed a District and Sessions Judge, he was so appointed in a substantive capacity; but in the relief sought for he himself sought for confirmation from a subsequent date meaning thereby that the appointment prior to the date from which he could be confirmed was in an officiating capacity and he should be deemed to be holding the substantive rank of the District and Sessions Judge with effect from November 18, 1953, and not earlier.
( 4 ) THROUGH the letter dated 12-1-1954 of the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at allahabad the petitioner was informed to keep himself in readiness and to finish the part-heard cases as he was likely to be posted as officiating District and Sessions Judge, Rampur. It may here be mentioned at the risk of repetition that in the letter the word officiating has been used, but the petitioner claims that his appointment was on substantive basis. The petitioner was thereafter informed that his transfer order had been cancelled and he was to continue in the same post at Meerut. In July 1954, rnany Civil and Sessions Judges some of whom were junior to the petitioner were confirmed as District and Sessions Judges, but the petitioner was not so confirmed. He thereupon sent a D. O. letter dated 16-8-1954 (Annexure b to the affidavit) to the registrar and was informed under letter dated 7-9-1954 (Annexure c to the affidavit) that the question of his confirmation as District and Sessions Judge was under consideration. As additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, Moradabad and Aligarh the petitioner served at meerut and
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
