BAIJ NATH SHARMA versus HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JODHPUR AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 02-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

BAIJ NA TH SHARMA 
v. 
HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT 
JODHPUR AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law : 
Promotion-Retired employee's juniors were given promotion after his 
retirement-Validity of-Held : Retired employee could have a gifrva11ce only 
if liis juniors were promoted p1ior to his supera11nuatio11-But he ca11not 
complain when promotions were made after his retireme11t. 
Promotion-Non-giwzt of-Due to admi11istrative inaction-Held, did 
A 
B 
c 
not entitle the employee to retrospective promotion from the date vacancy D 
arose-Howeve1; delay in filling up of vacancy deprecated-Hope e.:.pressed 
that in future timely promotion would be given in order to avoid disappoint-
ment to the employees-Administrative Law. 
Judicimy-Vaca11cies--Held, it is not at all advisable to keep any post 
vacant in judicimy when cowts are burdened with mrears and litigants are 
E 
the ones who suffe1~Fwthe1; ad hoc promotions should have been give11 
pending regular appointment. 
Constitution of India, I 9 50 : Anicle 226. 
Res judicat~Applicability of-Wlit petition pemzitted to be withdrawn 
with liberty to file representation a11d also to file a fresh w1it petition "if tlze 
occasion arose''-Held : Second w1it petition not bmred by pli11ciple of res 
judicata since the employee's representation was rejected'-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908-S. I I. 
The appellant was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS) 
F 
G 
and retired on superannuation on 31.5.1996. The appellant filed a writ 
petition before the High Court claiming that his case for promotion to the 
Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) be considered from the date 
when the posts in RHJS fell vacant. However, the writ petition was per-
mitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a representation and also to file H 
307 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A a fresh writ petition "if any oa:asion arose•. 
The High Court (Administrative side), however, look a decision in 
its Full Court meeting on 9.2.1996 not to promote the officers from RJS 
cadre to RIUS cadre till direct recruitment from the Bar was made in 
order to prevent imbalance between the strength of promotees and direct 
B recruits. However, it was found that no officer junior to the appellant was 
promoted before his superannuation. Bot four officers who were juniors 
to the appellant were promoted after the appellant had retired. 
The appellant's representation was rejeded and, therefore, the ap-
C pellanl filed a second writ petition claiming the same relief. The High 
Court dismissed this petition on the ground that it was barred by the 
principle of res judicata. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The appellant could certainly ha,·e a grievance if any of 
his juniors had been given promotion from a date prior to his superan-
nuation. But this is not the case here. Four officers were promoted after 
the appellant had retired and not from the dates the posts fell vacanL 
Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for promotion from the dates the 
E 
posts had fallen vacanL [313-D) 
1.2. It is regr;,ttable that because of the inaction on the pat;l of the 
High Court that recruitment from the Bar could not be made in time which 
created an imbalance in the. service and ultimately the appellant and 
officers similarly placed who suffered. After having put in long years or 
F service it is the seniority and promotion which an officer looks forward to • 
. Jle expects he be given doe promotion in time. But here the appellant has 
been deprived of his promotion without any fault or his. At least for future 
snch an unfortunate thing should not happen to any other officer similarly 
-situated. This m::Iaise "iiich abysmally alDicts any service "iien there is 
recruitment from different sources crops up in one form or the other with 
G great disadvantage of one or the other. But then service is not constituted 
merely for the benefit of the officers in the service but with a certain 
purpose in view and in the present case for dispensing justice to the public 
at large. It is not at all advisable to keep any post in judiciary vacant for 
da)'S when the courts are burdened with arrears and litigants are the ones • 
H who su!Ter. It is expected of the High Courts to be vigilant and to fill up 
.• 
. J 
' 
B.N. SHARMA v. RAJASIHANH.C. AT JODHPUR 
309 
the posts in direct quota in time and if the Bar quota cannot be fille

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