Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 916 (PAT)

Ram Lakhan Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2005-10-05

BARIN GHOSH, V.N.SINHA

body2005
Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents. 2. Petitioner, who earlier served as a Subordinate Judge IV, Dhanbad, has filed the present writ application assailing the decision of the Full Court as communicated to him by the Registrar General of this Court under letter No. 14377, dated 27.11.1997, Annexure-6, whereunder the Full Court having assessed and evaluated the services rendered by him as a Judicial Officer in the light of the Judgment and Orders of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 24.8.1993, passed in Review Petition No. 249 of 1992 (Writ Petition No. 1022 of 1998, All India Judges Association and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors.) decided not to grant him the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. He has further assailed the communication received from the Registrar General under Letter No. 8879 and 18241 dated 17.7.1998 and 20.11.1998, as contained in Annexures-10 and 10A, whereunder the writ petitioner was informed that his representations dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, as contained in Annexures-9 and 9A have been rejected by the High Court. 3. The ground of challenge raised against the decision of the Full Court not to extend his sen/ices upto 60 years is that the said.decision of the Full Court is contrary to the criteria laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. The Union of India St Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 2493 and has been recorded ignoring the unblemished and good service record of the petitioner "for about 23 years only in the light of the findings/observations arrived at by the Hon ble inspecting Judge, which according to the petitioner is not only arbitrary, but also perverse. The ground of challenge raised against the communication received under letter dated 17.7.1998 and 20.11.1998, Annexures-10 and 10A is that the representations of the petitioner dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A should not have been rejected by the Court as those representations were for expunction of the adverse observations passed by the Inspecting Judge, Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and was required to be placed and considered by his Lordship before their rejection. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and was required to be placed and considered by his Lordship before their rejection. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mahanth Brij Narain Das vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2004(1) PLJR 80 . 4. In support of his aforesaid contention, petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that he was appointed as ad hoc Munsif and he joined his first assignment on 2.6.1975 at Aurangabad as Judicial Magistrate. He has further indicated in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition that after being transferred from Aurangabad, he was posted at different places as Judicial Magistrate, Munsif, Railway Judicial Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and as Subordinate Judge and during the aforesaid posting there was no allegation in regard to his conduct, honesty, integrity and performance, which was appreciated by the different District Judges as also by the Hon ble Inspecting Judges of this Court. 5. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, petitioner has submitted that while he was posted as a Subordinate Judge IV at Dhanbad, Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal inspected his Court on 18.11.1997 and recorded his minutes of inspection dated 18.11.1997, which is contained in Annexure1 to this application, wherefrom it appears that with reference to the records of Title Suit No. 108 of 1996, Title Suit No. 62 of 1980, M(T)S No. 40 of 1983, Title (Partition) Suit No. 55 of 1981, Title Suit No. 61 of 1990 and Title (Eviction) Suit No. 21 of 1985, his Lordship made adverse comment against the petitioner inasmuch as his Lordship observed that the petitioner needs extensive study and should be more laborious in conducting judicial proceedings. (It also appears from the said inspection note that the same was communicated to the petitioner under Memo. No. 879-02 dated 7.3.1998). 6. In paragraph nos. 10 to 13, petitioner has attempted to explain the observations made in the minutes of inspection dated 18.11.1997 with reference to the application for information, as contained in Annexures-2 series and the order-sheet, as contained in Annexures-3 series. 7. Petitioner after receipt of the impugned communication dated 27.11,1997, Annexure-6 not extending his services beyond 58 years of age, filed representation dated 28.11.1997 requesting for supply of copy of the evaluation report and other connected materials. 7. Petitioner after receipt of the impugned communication dated 27.11,1997, Annexure-6 not extending his services beyond 58 years of age, filed representation dated 28.11.1997 requesting for supply of copy of the evaluation report and other connected materials. He also filed another representation dated 1.12.1997, Annexure-5 requesting for supply of the inspection note dated 18.11.1997 submitted by Honble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal. The request to supply the copy of the evaluation report and the connected materials was rejected under Letter No. 15080 dated 12.12.1997 addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad and forwarded to the petitioner under Memo. No. 4717 dated 20.12.1997 by the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad, as contained in Annexure-7, but the petitioner was supplied the copy of the confidential remarks dated 18.11.1997, as contained in Annexure-4 and the minutes of inspection under Memo. No. 879-02 dated 7.3.1998, as contained in Annexure-1, whereafter he fifed representation dated 28.1.1998 and another dated 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A for expunction of adverse observations recorded in the inspection note dated 18.11.1997 as also to review the decision not to extend his age from 58 years to 60 years and both the requests were rejected by this Court and the decision was communicated to the petitioner under impugned Letters dated 17.7.1998 and 20.11.1998, Annexures-10 and 10A. 8. Petitioner then filed the present writ application assailing the decision not to extend his age beyond 58 years as communicated to him under letter dated 27.11.1997, Annexure-6 as also the decision of this Court to reject his representation dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A under letter dated 17.7.1998 and 20.11.1998, as contained in Annexures-10 and 10A on the ground that the evaluation of his services for not extending the same beyond 58 years has been made in a manner contrary to the norms indicated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra) as also on the ground that the minutes of inspection and confidential remarks recorded on 18.11.1997 is not only contrary to each other, but should not have been considered while considering the case of petitioner for extension of age from 58 years to 60 years as neither the minutes of inspection nor the confidential remarks, as contained in Annexures-1 and 4 were communicated to the petitioner before he was served with the decision not to extend his age beyond 58 years. 9. 9. In support of the aforesaid contention besides relying on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra), counsel for the petitioner also relied on a Division Bench Judgment and Order of this Court (Quorum Barin Ghosh & V.N. Sinha, JJ.) rendered in the case of Shiveshwar Narayan vs. The Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 9325 of 2003 disposed of under orders dated 20.5.2005. With reference to the Judgment rendered in the case of Shiveshwar Narayan (supra), it was submitted that the petitioner having been appointed as Munsif with effect from 2.6.1975 and considering his unblemished service record, was promoted as Subordinate Judge with effect from 26.11.1996 the minutes of inspection and confidential remarks recorded on 18.11.1997 as contained in Annexures-1 and 4 with reference to the case records of Title Suit referred to in the minutes of inspection should have been favourably considered for extending the age of the petitioner as the Hon ble Inspecting Judge in the minutes of inspection and confidential remarks did not doubt the integrity, reputation and future utility of the petitioner but only suggested that he should put in extensive study and should be more laborious in conducting the judicial proceedings and finally concluded that the petitioner is an average officer. 10. The High Court Administration has filed a counter affidavit duly affirmed by the Officer on Special Duty in which the minutes of the proceedings of the Evaluation Committee held on 20.11.1997 and the proceedings of the meeting of the Full Court held on 22.11.1997 has been annexed as Annexures-B and C to the said counter affidavit, perusal whereof indicates that the Evaluation Committee under its proceedings dated 20.11.1997 resolved to recommend the petitioner and other seven officers for extension of age which resolution of the Evaluation Committee was considered by the Full Court on 22.11.1997 and the Full Court differing with the resolution of the Evaluation Committee concerning the petitioner opined that his further continuance in service will not be in public interest as the officer does not possess potential for continued useful service which decision of the Full Court was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 27.11.1997, Annexure-6. 11. 11. It appears from the averments made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that while considering the case of the petitioner for extension of age beyond 58 years, the Full Court considered the entire service record of the petitioner and then decided to differ with the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee to grant extension beyond 58 years. 12. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in terms of the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of All India Judges1 Association & Ors. (supra) the benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all the Judicial Officers irrespective of their past records of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit of increased age will be available to only those, who in the opinion of the High Court have the potential for continued useful service. The potential for continued utility of Judicial Officer shall be assessed and evaluated by the High Court on the basis of his past record of service, character roll, quality of judgments and other relevant matters. In the present case, as it appears from the counter affidavit of the High Court, the entire service records of the petitioner was considered by the Evaluation Committee and the Full Court and then the Full Court differed with the opinion of the Evaluation Committce to extend the age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years as in the opinion of the Full Court, petitioners further continuance in service will not be in the public interest. 13. The submission that the minutes of inspection and the confidential remarks dated 18.11.1997 Annexures-1 and 4 should not have been considered by the Full Court as the inspection note and confidential remarks were not communicated to the petitioner before meeting of the Full Court also appears to be misconceived as in terms of the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra) as also the other judgments, natural justice has no application in the matters relating to extension of age of the Judicial Officers as in terms of the said judgment the utility of the officers is to be assessed by the High Court on the basis of the materials available on record as in the case of compulsory retirement of the Judicial Officers. The inspection note and the confidential remarks, as contained in Annexures-1 and 4 only indicated that the petitioner was an average officer who needs extensive study and is required to be more laborious in conducting the judicial proceedings and the Full Court taking into account those observation of the Honble Inspecting Judge opined that the petitioners further continuance in service will not be in the public interest as the officer does not possess potential for continued useful service. In the opinion of this Court, the observation of the Hon ble Inspecting Judge contained in the minutes of inspection and confidential remarks does not contain any stigma, as such, was not required to be served on the petitioner. The said opinion of the Hon ble inspecting Judge has been considered for evaluating his future utility and not for imposing any punishment on the petitioner and thus the inspection note and the confidential remarks even if not served on the petitioner before considering his case for extension of age shall not vitiate the impugned decision taken in the Full Court meeting on 22.11.1997 after considering the entire service record of the petitioner with emphasis on recent performance as indicated in the minutes of inspection and confidential remarks dated 18.11.1997, Annexures-1 and 4. There does not appear to be any error in the decision of the Full Court not to extend the age of the petitioner. The submission that the representations of the petitioner dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A should not have been rejected by the Court as those representations were addressed against the confidential notes and remarks recorded by Hon ble Mr. The submission that the representations of the petitioner dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A should not have been rejected by the Court as those representations were addressed against the confidential notes and remarks recorded by Hon ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal without seeking his Lordships opinion is concerned, also has no merit as perusal of the two representations dated 28.1.1998 and 4.5.1998, Annexures-9 and 9A would indicate that the same is a composite representation for expunction of the adverse observation as contained in the Inspection Note/Remarks dated 18.11.1997 Annexures1 also for review of the Full Court decision not to extend the retirement age of the petitioner. The decision not to extend the retirement age of the petitioner was taken by the Full Court and in the opinion of this Court, representations, Annexures-9 and 9A were rightly considered by the Court and there does not appear to be any merit in the submission, which is also rejected. 14. There does not appear to be any merit in this application, which is accordingly, dismissed. Barin Ghosh, J. 15 I agree.