D.K. AGARWAL versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 317 · Decided: 11-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

D.K. AGARWAL 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
MAY 11, 1988 
IRANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975: Rules 4B and 27-
Judicial Officer-Adverse remarks against-Before communication 
A 
B 
to judicial officer-To be placed before Chief Justice-Member of 
higher judicial service-Grant of selection/super time scale-Within 
administrative jurisdiction of High Court-Interference by Court does C 
not mean granting relief but referring the matter back to High Court for 
reconsideration. 
Constitution of India, 1950--Article 32-Administrative jurisdic­
tion of High Court-When and in what circumstances can the Supreme D 
Court interfere though ordinarily it does not. 
In April, 1986, the Selection Committee constituted by the Chief 
Justice of Allahabad High Court recommended the grant of super-time 
scale to the appellant, a member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services, 
under Rule 27A of the U.P. Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1975. The 
E 
Full Court of the High Court considered the recommendation on two 
occasions, but no decision could he taken as each time the Administra­
tive Judge made certain new allegations against the appellant. Finally, 
on January 17, 1987, the Full Court found the appellant unfit for a post 
in the super-time scale. On the eve of the Full Court Meeting the 
Administrative Judge was stated to have written a secret letter to the 
F 
Chief Justice. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Division 
Bench. Meanwhile, the appellant made a representation to the High 
Court on its Administrative side for reconsideration of the resolution of 
the Full Court. While no decision was taken by the Full Court at its 
G 
meeting held on May 16, 1987, an adverse entry for the year 1986-87 
was recorded by the Administrative Judge. The Chief Justice enquired 
into the allegations contained in the adverse entry and found that the 
allegations had no foundation whatsoever. He recorded in bis minutes 
that he regarded the appellant as a very good, able and competent 
administrator with an unblemished integrity. 
H 
317 
318 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Division Bench, after noticing the remarks of the Chief 
Justice, quashed the resolution of the Full Court, and referred back the 
matter to the Full Court for reconsideration. It also directed that the 
appellant be given an opportunity of explaining the imputations made 
against him in the letter written by the Administrative Judge on the eve 
of the Full Court meeting of January 17, 1988. 
B 
c 
Dissatisfied with the above decision, the appellant filed an appeal 
by special leave in this Court. 
Meanwhile, the Full Court at its meeting held on February 20, 
1988, again rejected the recommendation of the Selection Committee 
for the grant of super-time scale to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: I.I Whether a member of the Higher Judicial Service 
should be granted the selection grade or the super-time scale is a matter 
D 
exclusively within the administrative jurisdiction of the High Court. 
This Court will not ordinarily interfere with any decision of the High 
Court in such a matter. However, if the High Court acts in violation of 
any rule framed by .it or of the principles of natural justice or comes to 
any finding not supported by any reliable material, this Court has to 
examine the matter for ends of justice. But, interference does not mean 
E 
granting of relief which the High Court is entrusted to grant in its 
administrative jurisdiction. The Court will ordinarily refer back the 
matter for reconsideration of the High Court. [322F-H] 
However, in the instant case ends of justice would require inter-
ference by disposing of the matter finally, without referring it again to 
F 
the High Court. [323A] 
1.2 Proviso to Rule 4(B) of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules 
requires that before an adverse remark is communicated to the con-
cerned judicial officer; it must be placed before the Chief Justice. By 
necessary implication, therefore, the rule requires concurrence of the 
G 
Chief Justice for taking necessary action on the adverse remark by 
communicating to the judicial officer concerned. [324A-B] 
In the instant case, although the Chief Justice did not agree with 
the adverse remarks, action was taken by communicating them to the 
appellant in utter violation of the proviso to Rule 4B and also in disre-
H gard of the minutes 

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