Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3469 (PNJ)

Anmol Singh Nayar v. State Of Haryana

2018-08-14

A.B.CHAUDHARI, KULDIP SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J. - Petitioner, who is serving as Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.10.2017 (Annexure P-12), vide which, respondent no.1 appointed respondent nos.3 to 9 as Additional District & Sessions Judges, by way of promotion on the recommendation of respondent no.2, in violation of Rules 6(1) (a) and 8 of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 by ignoring rightful claim of the petitioner. He has also challenged the guidelines framed by the Full Court in a meeting held on 29.1.2013 (Annexure P11). 2. The grouse of the petitioner is that after joining as Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate since 27.1.2007, he has been working sincerely. He successfully completed probation. Respondent No.2 High Court on 18.11.2014 directed 54 HCS (JB) Officers, including the petitioner, to forward the best judgments (3 Civil and 3 Criminal). All the 54 officers, including the petitioner, were required to appear in suitability test for the post of Additional Sessions Judge under Rule 6(1)(a) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 . The suitability test was fixed for 13.12.2014. One day before, he was told that since petitioner is below 35 years of age, he is not being called for suitability test in view of the guidelines. Petitioner challenged the said decision by way of filing CWP No.285 of 2015, which was disposed of as not pressed vide order dated 12.7.2017, as the petitioner was going to complete 35 years on 17.5.2017. 3. Grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that again for 20 posts, Judicial Officers were called for suitability test under Rule 6(1)(a) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 vide letter dated 25.7.2017. Test was held on 12.8.2017 in Judicial Academy, Sector 43, Chandigarh. Thereafter, petitioner appeared for interview on 12.9.2017 but was not selected. 7 names were recommended. Petitioner claimed that selection appears to have been made on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit, which is against Rule 6(1)(a) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. He prays for setting aside of the same. 4. The factual position is not disputed by the High Court in the written statement. It was stated that a criteria was laid down to test the suitability of the candidates. He prays for setting aside of the same. 4. The factual position is not disputed by the High Court in the written statement. It was stated that a criteria was laid down to test the suitability of the candidates. 20 HCS (JB) Officers cleared the suitability test held on 12.8.2017 and Vice Voce on 12.9.2017 and 13.9.2017. A Committee of Judges had gone through the judgments of the officers carefully. The Committee graded the judgments delivered by Sh.Anmol Singh Nayyar - petitioner, posted as Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani as 'below average'. Thus Committee recommended that he is not recommended for promotion. Other officers were promoted. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file. 6. Admittedly, promotions under Rule 6(1)(a) of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which is attracted in the present case, are to be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. In order to assess the merit and suitability, Rule 8 lays down as under:- 8. For assessing and testing the merit and the suitability of a member of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) under rule 6(a) above, the High Court may- (a) take into consideration (i) Annual Confidential Reports for preceding five years; (ii) inspection report of the court of the officer made by the inspecting judge nominated by the Chief Justice during the preceding three years; (iii) inspections done by the officer of his own court and courts subordinate to him if he is assigned inspection work of those courts during the preceding three years; (iv) self assessment report of the officer of the work during the preceding three years; (v) judgments of the cases decided by the officer during the preceding three years; and (b) hold a written objective test (20 marks); and viva voce (20 marks) in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge and to assess the efficiency in legal field. Provided that any officer having grading as C (integrity doubtful) in any year shall not be eligible to be considered for promotion. 7. Therefore, it is clear that the judgments of the officers during preceding three years was one of the components to be considered for assessing merit and suitability. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed the written test and viva voce test but the Committee examined his judgments and graded it 'below average'. 7. Therefore, it is clear that the judgments of the officers during preceding three years was one of the components to be considered for assessing merit and suitability. Admittedly, the petitioner had passed the written test and viva voce test but the Committee examined his judgments and graded it 'below average'. Therefore, he was found not suitable. The final result is reproduced as under:- Sr.No . Name Correct Questions Marks in written exam Marks in viva voce Total Marks Grading judgments Whether qualified or not"? 1 Rajesh Gupta 68 51 16 67 Above Average Qualified 2 Amit Kumar Garg 53 43.5 16 59.5 Above Average Qualified 3 Amit Garg 63 47.25 18 65.25 Good Qualified 4 Saurab Gusain 58 43.5 18 61.5 Good Qualified 5 Aarti Singh 48 36 16 52 Good Qualified 6 Anmol Singh Nayar 74 55.5 10 65.5 Below Average Not Suitable 7 Puneet Sehgal 66 49.5 18 67.5 Very Good Qualified 8 Suruchi Atreja Singh 73 54.75 18 72.75 Very Good Qualified 9 Vijay James 61 45.75 15 60.75 Above Average Qualified 10 Yashika 67 50.25 17 67.25 Good Qualified 11 Parminder Kaur 61 45.75 11 56.75 Above Average Qualified 12 Vijayant Sehgal 57 42.75 14 56.75 Good Qualified 13 Payal Bansal 68 51 12 63 Above Average Qualified 14 Sunil Chauhan 69 51.75 17 68.75 Good Qualified 15 Anupanish Modi 66 49.5 16 65.5 Good Qualified 16 Prashant Rana 62 46.5 18 64.5 Good Qualified 17 Renu Rana 58 43.5 13 56.5 Above Average Qualified 18 Swati Sehgal 54 40.5 18 58.5 Good Qualified 19 Sanjay Kumar Sharma 73 54.75 13 67.75 Good Qualified 20 Harshali Chaudhary 53 39.75 17 56.75 Good Qualified 8. Therefore, it is apparent that under Rule 8 of Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 itself, quality of the judgments of the petitioner was required to be examined. For this purpose, a Committee of Judges was formed, which was required to form an opinion regarding the quality of judgments. Since, quality of judgments of the petitioner was found 'below average', therefore, despite having passed the written and viva voce test, the petitioner was found not suitable for promotion to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge. 9. We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the decision of the High Court in ignoring the petitioner for promotion. 9. We are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the decision of the High Court in ignoring the petitioner for promotion. The post of Additional District & Sessions Judge is of much higher responsibility. The skill of the officer to martial the evidence, law and pass a reasoned judgment have to be of higher quality so that people may get justice. It is apparent that except the petitioner, quality of judgments of all other 19 candidates was found to be either 'above average' or 'good' or 'very good' and therefore, they were found suitable for promotion. Since, quality of judgments of the petitioner was 'below average', therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in finding the petitioner not suitable for promotion to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge. This is in perfect consonance with the Rules reproduced above. The petitioner had withdrawn his earlier writ petition, whereby he has challenged certain Rules. We find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.