IMPORTANT POINT
Neither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High Court concerned, to make an independent assessment of the same, as if sitting on an appeal.

Headnote:Service Law-Judicial Service-Selection grade and super time scale, grant of-Challenged as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional-Third respondent was said to have been given super time scale superseding eight District Judges senior to him when he had never worked as District and Sessions Judge for any period-Claim that only such a District and Sessions Judge who actively serve and discharge duties holding such office in the field alone can be considered for according selection grade or super time scale-Whether sustainable-(No)-It proceeds upon not only a total misreading of relevant rules but is also opposed to well settled position in law in this regard-Evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court forming their unanimous opinions is neither arbitrary or capricious nor irrational-J & K Higher Judicial Service Rules 1983-J & K District and Sessions Judges (Selection Grade Post) Rules, 1968.
       Held : As has often been reiterated by this Court, judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision has been observed correctly and not the decision itself, as such. Critical or independent analysis or appraisal of the materials by the Courts exercising powers of judicial review unlike the case of an appellate court, would neither be permissible nor conducive to the interests of either the officers concerned or the system and institutions of administration of justice with which we are concerned in this case, by going into the correctness as such of the ACRs or the assessment made by the Committee and approval accorded by the Full Court of the High Court. (Para 7)
       Having regard to the rules in force the staff pattern in vogue and the guidelines further formulated by the High Court, it is futile for the petitioners to contend that it should be accorded on the basis of seniority only. In any event, even in this regard the difference in seniority could not be said to be so substantial or vast as to lend room for any legitimate plea that it is so arbitrary or unreasonable as to call for interference. Viewed in the context of the basis or criteria for according selection grade, as envisaged in the Statutory Rules, it involves process of selection and seniority, if at all will be to reckon the zone of consideration or when the merit ranking is equal and not for the grant itself. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea on behalf of the petitioners that the third respondent could not have been even considered for the grant of selection grade/super-time scale, at the relevant and respective points of time. (Para 9)
       On a careful consideration of the entire materials brought to our notice by learned counsel on either side, we are satisfied that the evaluation made by the Committee/Full Court forming their unanimous opinions is neither so arbitrary or capricious nor can be said to be so irrational as to shock the conscience of the Court to warrant or justify any interference. In cases of such assessment, evaluation and formulation of opinions a vast range of multiple factors play a vital and important role and no one factor should be allowed to be overblown out of proportion either to decry or deify an issue to be resolved or claims sought to be considered or asserted. In the very nature of things it would be difficult, nearing almost an impossibility to subject such exercise undertaken by the Full Court, to judicial review except in an extraordinary case when the Court is convinced that some monstrous thing which ought not to have taken place has really happened and not merely because there could be another possible view or someone has some grievance about the exercise undertaken by the Committee/Full Court. Viewed thus, and considered in the background of the factual details and materials on record, there is absolutely no need or justification for this Court to interfere in the matter, with the impugned proceedings. (Para 10)
       The challenge to the grant of super-time scale to the third respondent on the ground that he had put in only about nine months service as selection grade District and Sessions Judge has no merit inasmuch as there is no minimum stipulated period of service required, to accord such super-time scale in the rules in force and as a matter of fact, the conspicuous omission to stipulate any such requirement would go to show that no such criteria is a must and all or any of the selection grade District and Sessions Judges available could become eligible for consideration. The recommendations of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission having not been duly implemented by any amendment of rules so far, the same cannot be insisted upon as a binding criteria. That apart, in a given situation, there may be no one satisfying such required service and that insisting upon any such minimum service as selection grade District and Sessions Judge may have counter productive result in that it may even lead to a situation where no one could be given the super-time scale at all dehors their intrinsic merit. The absence of reasons in the order rejecting the representations or the original resolution granting selection grade/super-time scale, in the nature of proceedings themselves cannot be said to be an infirmity. The noting in the files dealing with those aspects would be sufficient record and the proceedings in the form of resolutions cannot be expected to be in the format of a judicial order dealing with each and every claim. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order bearing No. 283 dated 4.7.2002 and order Nos. 142-143 dated 27.4.2002 and also to quash the grant of selection grade and super-time scale to the third respondent herein, including the recommendations said to have been made for consideration of the name of R-3 for further elevation. In addition thereto, relief of Certiorari was sought even to quash the grant of selection grade to respondents 4 to 8 on the ground that the criteria on which it was accorded to them was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As a consequence to the above, relief in the nature of Mandamus was also sought to direct the second respondent to grant selection grade to the petitioners 1 to 3 with effect from 28.6.2001 and further grant to the petitioners 1 to 3 super-time scale with effect from 27.4.2002, the date on which it was said to have been given to R-3, in addition to seeking for such relief for Mandamus to give selection grade to petitioners 4 and 5 with effect from 27.4.2002, the date from which it was given to respondents 4 to 8, with all consequential benefits including the seniority and arrears of pay. Certain other reliefs, a detailed reference to which is wholly unnecessary, have also been claimed.

2. The petitioners and respondents 3 and 7 were said to have been selected as Munsiffs after passing the Kashmir Civil Services (Judicial) Examination on 28.8.1974 and respondents 4 to 6 and 8 were selected for appointment during the period between 1978 and 1982. The first petitioner was said to have been promoted on 30.8.1995, whereas petitioners 2 to 4 and respondent 3 promoted as District and Sessions Judges in November 1995. Petitioners 1 to 4 and respondent 3 were confirmed as District and Sessions Judges on 22.1.1998 with effect from 1997 while the other private parties-respondents are said to be continued as temporary/officiating District and Sessions Judges. In the Gradation List published by the High Court on 1.1.2001, petitioners 1 to 4 were said to have been shown at Serial Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19, whereas respondents 3 to 8 were shown at Serial Nos. 18, 31, 32, 36, 23 and 37 respectively. On 4.7.2001, the third respondent was placed in the selection grade w.e.f. 28.6.2001, according to the writ petitioners, over the head of six District Judges senior to him. The grievance of the petitioners, among other things, is that the third respondent had never worked as District and Sessions Judge for any period and he was not even entitled to be considered for according such selection grade. On coming to know of the same, the petitioners 1 and 3 sought for copies of the proceedings and as soon as they were given in September, 2001, the petitioners 1 to 3 also seem to have made Representations/Review Petitions against the order No. 283 dated 4.7.2001. The second petitioner was said to have been granted selection grade by order No. 810 dated 24.12.2001 w.e.f. 22.12.2001 without restoring his original seniority, while at the same time bypassing the claims of petitioner No. 1. On 16.4.2002, the petitioners 1 and 2 seem to have made representations to the President of India.

3. It may be stated at this stage that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held a Full Bench Meeting on 27.4.2002 to consider the issue relating to the grant of super-time scale/selection grade in Higher Judicial Services and the Full Court formulated the criteria/guidelines for grant of super-time scale and selection grade for members of the Higher Judicial Services. The said guidelines were also impugned as being irrational and inconsistent with what is known as recommendations of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission accepted, subject to certain modifications, by this Court in the decision reported in All India Judges Association vs. Union of I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 571

IMPORTANT POINTNeither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High Court concerned, to make an independent assessment of the same, as if sitting on an appeal.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Neither the High Court nor this Court, in exercise of its powers of judicial review, could or would at any rate substitute themselves in the place of the Committee/Full Court of the High Court concerned, to make an independent assessment of the same, as if sitting on an appeal.