The adverse entry awarded to the petitioner was quashed as it was found to be illegal and not based on tangible material. The decision of the Administrative Committee was also quashed. The court directed the petitioner to be awarded promotion with retrospective effect to UPHJS 2015.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a writ of certiorari seeking quashing of annual confidential remarks awarded by the District Judge, Ghaziabad to the petitioner for the year 2013–14 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the decision taken by Administrative Committee of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad as communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated 1.6.2015, (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) rejecting representation of the petitioner against the said adverse entry inasmuch as, in the opinion of Administrative Committee, no illegality was committed by the then District Judge in awarding adverse entry to the petitioner for the year, 2013-14, as well as communication dated 4.7.2015 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the second representation filed by petitioner against the adverse entry awarded to him for the year 2013-14, has also been rejected, but on the ground of maintainability.

3. Record shows that the petitioner Sunil Kumar Singh-III was selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission for U.P. Judicial Services in the year 2000. After selection, petitioner was duly appointed as Civil Judge, Junior Division and was posted at Lucknow on 23.12. 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that since his initial appointment, his work and conduct has always been appreciated by his superiors. On account of above, petitioner has been awarded good/very good entries in his Annual Confidential Reports in his tenure of service up to the period 2012-13. For ready reference, the details of the same are tabulated herein under:

4. In the year 2013–2014, petitioner was posted as Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghaziabad. According to petitioner, he had performed his duty to the best of his ability, yet in the year 2013–14, the then District Judge, Ghaziabad awarded an adverse entry to petitioner for the said period i.e. 2013-14, which is to the following effect “Integrity doubtful” as there are several complaints against the petitioner.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid adverse entry awarded to petitioner, he made a representation dated 10.10.2014 before the High Court, Allahabad. According to the learned counsel representing respondent 2, since the then District Judge, Ghaziabad, who had awarded aforementioned adverse entry to petitioner, was elevated to the Bench of this Court and also in view of the resolution dated 01.10.1997 passed by the Administrative Committee of this Court as well as in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 3 Rule 4 of the High Court Rules, the said representation of the petitioner was placed before a Committee of the High