HIGH COURT OF M.P versus MARESH PRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 06-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HIGH COURT OF M.P .. 
v. 
MARESH PRAKASH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 
(S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Service law-Respondent confirmed as Civil Judge later than 
batchmateHirst representation rejected by Full Court of the High Court on 
~ 
consideration of record-Second representation accepted by two judges of -
C Grievance Committee on a comparative assessment-Third Judge disagreeing 
and placing matter before Full Court-Held, the Full Court was right in reject-
ing the recommendation of the two judges and the second repre-
sentation-Held, furdW, each civil judge to be judged individually on his own 
record. 
D 
Constitution of India, Article 235-Decisions of Full Court of the High 
Court in the matter of confinnation of subordinizte judges-Held, unless there 
has been misrepresentation of a legal position, it is undesirable for one Full 
Court to revise decision taken by earlier Full Court. 
Constitution of India, Article 235-Representation by subordinate judge 
E to Full Court of the High Cowt--Comments of the Chief Justice recorded on 
file-Held, would not prevent independent consideration by Full Court-Held, 
further, every High Court Judge of same stature, the Chief Justice being fiTst 
among equals. 
F 
Service Law-High Court by judicial order directing placement of civil 
judge in subsequent cadres-Held, the court could only order consideration 
of the case for promotion-Constitution of India, Article 22~Judicial 
Review. 
Constitution of India, Article 136-High Court on the judicial side 
G setting aside Full Court decision on administrative side-Held, High Court 
could appeal to the Supreme Court to support its administrative order. . 
Costs-Held, ordinarily not made in a matter between a High Court 
and a judge subordinate to it-Practice and procedure. 
H 
The District Judge in whose district the first Respondent was ap-
128 
IIlGHCOURT~MAHESHPRAKASH 
129 
pointed Civil Judge Class II made certain remarks in the confidential A 
report. The Chief Justice of the High Ceurt made the following endorse-
ment thereon : "Unsatisfactory. To be watched for 6 months". The first . 
respondent who was not found fit for confirmation at the Full Court 
meeting held in February was later confirmed, at the Full Court meeting 
held in July, 1974. 
B 
The Grievance Committee of the High Court to which the first 
representation made by the first respondent for earlier confirmation along 
with his batchmates was referred, examined his record in March, 1976 and 
recommended rejection of the representation. This was accepted by the 
Full Court and its decision communicated to the first respondent in May, · C 
1976. 
Suppressing this fact, the first respondent made a second repre-
sentation which was again referred to another Grievance Committee. Two 
of the High Court judges on this committee recommended earlier confir-
mation of the first respondent on a comparative assessment of the records D 
of all others in his batch. The third judge while disagreeing doubted 
whether comparative assessment of records could be undertaken in the 
case of the first respondent alone and accordingly left the decision to the 
Full Court. In its meeting in 1985 the Full Court rejected the recommen-
dation of the two judges consequently the representation of the first E 
respondent. 
The Writ Petition filed by the first respondent was allowed by a 
Division Bench of the High Court on the Judicial side setting aside the 
order of the High Court on the administrative aside. Although the petition 
itself did not impute malafides to either the Chief Justice or the Full Court, F 
the Division Bench found the decision not to confirm the first respondent 
earlier smacked of "extraneous considerations". It found that there was no 
material for the Chief Justice to have made the remarks and that the 
resolutions of the Full Court in the matter could not be said "to be the 
outcome of a dispassionate approach". Ordering the first respondent's G 
-confirmati()n from February 1973, the Division Bench directed his further 
promotion to the next three higher cadres. 
Opposing the High Court's appeal in the Supreme Court, the first 
respondent contended, inter alia, that the High Court could not appeal 
against its own order and in any event could not take the plea that the writ H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
petition in t.he High Court ought to have been dismissed for laches. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.

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