ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 19-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES 
WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
APRIL 19, 1988 
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules: Additional District Judge-
Refusal of Selection grade--Justiciability of. 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 233 and 235-Judicial C 
Officer-Promotion to higher grade/post-Made on criteria of merit-
Junior Officer bound to supersede his senior-Integrity of judicial 
officer-Great asset to administration of justice-To be given due 
consideration. 
The 2nd petitioner, a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service D 
and working as an Additional District Judge in a writ petition to this 
Court, contended that he was directly recruited to service as a 
Scheduled Castes candidate and that the High Court had acted in an 
unreasonable manner in refusing to grant selection grade to him on 
more than one occasion. 
· Disposing of the Writ Petition, 
HELD: I. Where promotion to higher grade or post is made on 
the criteria of ·merit, many a time a junior officer is bound to supersede 
his senior. In the process of assessment of comparative merit, superses-
E 
sion of a senior officer may result. This cannot he helped. [614G-Hl 
F 
In the instant case, the petitioner was considered on merit along 
with others, and as the High Court found officers junior to him suitable 
for grant of selection grade the petitioner could not be selected. This 
Court finds no illegality in the High Court's order. [615A] 
2. Integrity of a judicial officer is a great asset to administration 
of justice. It must be given due weight. [6JSC] 
3. The petitioner in the instant case, comes from a weaker section 
G 
of the society and he has been found to be an honest officer. This fact 
needs consideration. The High Court should consider the petitioner's 
H 
6}3 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 3 S.C.R. 
case sympathetkallv for the grant of selection grade at the next 
selection. I 61 SD I 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5858of1983. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
G.L. Sanghi, M. T. Siddiqi and Irfan Ahmed for the Petitioners. 
Anil Dev Singh, C. Ramesh, K. Swami and Miss A. Subhashini 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
The Petitioner is a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, at 
present working as Additional district Judge. The petitioner was 
directly recruited to service as a Scheduled Castes candidate. He has 
approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution with a grievance that the High Court of Delhi has acted in 
an unreasonable manner in refusing to grant selection grade to him on 
more than one occasion. A number of other allied questions were 
raised during the course of arguments but ultimately on behalf of the 
petitioner only the grievance relating to the refusal of selection grade 
was pressed. 
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a length and 
having perused the records and also the annual confidential reports 
awarded to the petitioner and other papers produced on behalf of the 
High Court, we find it difficult to hold that the High Court has acted 
unreasonably in refusing to grant selection grade to the petitioner. 
Admittedly grant of selection grade was considered on the criteria of 
merit to the members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Whenever a 
post in the selection grade was available the High Court considered the 
petitioner along with other officers but on a comparative assessment of 
merit of eligible officers, it granted selection grade to the officers who 
were junior to the petitioner and in that process the petitioner stood 
superseded. Where promotion to higher grade or post is made on the 
criteria of merit, many a time junior officer is bound to supersede his 
senior in the process of assessment of comparative merit, which may 
result in supersession of a senior officer. This cannot be helped since 
the petitioner's case was considered on merit along with others. and as 
..... 
I ,
"' I 
._, 
fl,
~
~
ALL INDIA BACKWARD ASSCN: v. U.0.1. 
615 
the High Court found officers junior to the petitioner suitable for grant 
A 
of selection grade the petitioner could not be selected. We find no 
il' 
1· 
. 
'- HighC 
' 
d 
.ega ·t:y m Le 
ourt s or ers. 
However, we would like to refer one aspect which needs consi-
deration. On a perusal of the confidential character roll entries and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.