Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 173 (GAU)

Ranjit Kumar Ganguly v. Gauhati High Court

1996-08-08

S.L.SARAF

body1996
By this application the petitioner has challenged the Notification No.HC.VII-34/91/18,557/A dated 10.8.92 and has prayed for consideration of the case of the petitioner afresh for promotion and appointment to the post of Selection ' Grade District and Sessions Judge by setting aside the order dated 25.1.93. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited from the Bar and was appointed as a Judicial Magistrate in Grade III of the Assam Judicial Service on 21.12.67 and he joined service on 3.1.68 as Judicial Magistrate in Karimganj. After putting on some years as Judicial Magistrate he was appointed as Chief Judicial Magistrate, thereafter as Assistant District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 23.12.81. By an order dated 11.9.86 the petitioner was confirmed in Grade II of the Assam Judicial Service. Finally, by an order dated 30th September, 1988 the petitioner was promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge in Grade I. While in the regular service as Judicial Officer he was also presiding for sometime as a Member of the Illegal Migrants (Determination) Tribunal and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh and also a Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were appointed Judicial Officer on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission. Thereupon on promotion they were also given the Grade I in accordance with the Assam Judicial Service Rules after completing the necessary tenure in different grades of judicial service. Mr. Chaliha from the Bar informs the Court that Grade I posting of the petitioner was on 11.10.88 and that of respondent No.4 on 9.5.88 and the respondent No.5 on 12.5.88. As such, the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 at the relevant time that is in the year 1992 were senior officers of Grade 1 Judicial Service. At that time the High Court intended to confer Selection Grade to some of its Grade I Officers. For the aforesaid purposes the Full Court Meeting of the High Court was held on 1.8.92 whereby the High Court recorded "that it considered the ACRs and personal files of 18 Grade I Judicial Officers of" Assam .Indicia! Service. Entries which may even be remotedly considered as adverse are not taken into consideration, considered the assessments made and the quality of judgments forwarded by these officers. Service. Entries which may even be remotedly considered as adverse are not taken into consideration, considered the assessments made and the quality of judgments forwarded by these officers. On a consideration of the merit and ability of 18 officers it is found that these officers possessed average ability and merit. Their names arranged according to the seniority are as follows : "Serial No Existing Seniority Names 1. 2 Shri PK Deb 2. 6 Shri PC Barpujari 3. 7 Shri P. Kalita 4. 8 ShriPCPhukan 5. 14 Shri D.Biswas 6. 16 Shri PG Agarwalla All of them enjoy good reputation and integrity." 2. The aforesaid records are produced by Mr. Chaliha, Senior Standing Counsel for the Gauhati High Court at the time of hearing of this matter. Mr. Bhattaeharyya, counsel for the petitioner was also shown the said records at the time of hearing. Further, the affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 as also on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 reads as follows : "40. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 12 of the petition, the statement made therein are denied. The selection of the respondents 4 and 5 along with 4 other senior officers of the Grade I was made by the Hon'ble High Court in its Full Court meeting dated 1.7.92. The said Full Court was attended by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who considered the ACRs. Disposal Statements, Personal File and the assessment of judgment of the concerned officers and after consideration of all these facts only the Full Court resolved to promote and appoint 6 (six) officers of the Grade I including the respondents 4 and 5. It is further denied that the Hon'ble High Court has abdicated its power of appointment to the Hon'ble Chief Justice or any committee constituted for that purpose. As stated earlier the merits of the officer were evaluated by all the members of the Full Court and the decision was taken thereafter. It is therefore, denied that the decision to promote the six officers was arbitrary and discriminatory." 3. Mr. As stated earlier the merits of the officer were evaluated by all the members of the Full Court and the decision was taken thereafter. It is therefore, denied that the decision to promote the six officers was arbitrary and discriminatory." 3. Mr. Bhattaeharyya appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there should be some transparency by the High Court in matters of awarding Selection Gtade to its officers in Grade I. He further submits that since the petitioner has already retired there is nothing much left in the petition except entitlement of some extra remuneration or emoluments. Mr. Chaliha appearing for the High Court refers to Rule 5 (4) (ii) of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 1967. By the said Rule appointment to the Selection Grade District and Sessions Judge is to be made by the High Court by promotion from Grade I of the service. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules provides that appointment to the post of Grade I and Grade II by promotion from the next Grade below shall be made on the ground of merit and ability; seniority being considered only when merit and ability are appproximately equal. The above Rules show that promotion in the Judicial Service to Grades II and I shall be given to meritorious and able Judicial Officers. The seniority comes as an edge if merit and ability are approximately equal. Selection Grade posting under Rule 5 is to be made by the High Court by promotion from Grade I of the service. Such promotion had to be done at a meeting of all Judges of the High Court including the Chief Justice and on the basis of the evalution by the members of the Full Court of the individual's merit and ability and decision taken thereon. 4. In the instant case from the minutes of the Full Court Meeting dated 1.8.92 it is abundantly clear that ACRs and personal files of confirmed Grade I officers of Assam Judicial Service includiag the quality of judgment of various officers were duly considered by the Full Court of the High Court and on consideration of the merit and ability of the officers and in order of seniority selected 6 persons to be given the Selection Grade. There is no irregularity in the appointment made or Selection Grade given to the said 6 officers.The name of the petitioner was also one of 18 confirmed Grade I officers. His name was also considered but he was not found being entitled to the Selection Grade. The High Court has acted bonafide and in the interest of justice to its Judicial Officer. The selection was made fairly and in good judgment. The petitioner's grievance that the said appointment was made by the Chief Justice or some members of the Committee is not correct on the face of the records available to the Court. In view of above, I dismiss this application. However, the petitioner shall ' be at liberty to move the appropriate authorities for grant of emoluments entitled by the Selection Grade Officers and such application may be considered by the respondents sympathetically. There will be no order as to costs.