MS. X versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 10-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
   [2022] 15 S.C.R. 57
57
MS. X
v.
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Judicial Services – Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services
(recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017 – Transfer
Policy of Madhya Pradesh High Court – Clause 9, 9(a) – Additional
District & Sessions Judge – Re-instatement in Service – Whether
the resignation of petitioner was voluntary – As per the Petitioner
(Additional District and Session Judge), she was sexually harassed
by Justice ‘A’ and thereafter she was transferred to other district –
She made a representation praying for an extension so that her
daughter completes her academic session – Her representation was
rejected – Consequent to which she resigned – Judges Inquiry
Commission (JIC) cleared Justice ‘A’ of all charges – However, JIC
found that the transfer of the petitioner was irregular and the
petitioner should be re-instated in the service – Her representation
to the Chief Justice of High Court for her reinstatement was rejected
by the Full Court twice despite the request made by Supreme Court
– Held: The transfer of the petitioner was effected mid-term though
she could have very well been transferred in general transfers, to
be effected in March-April – Neither the procedure as prescribed
under Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy of obtaining the comments
from the District Judge and the Portfolio Judge were complied with,
nor the Transfer Committee considered the provisions of Clause
9(a) of the Transfer Policy – The rejection of the second
representation depicts total non application of mind by the then RG
as well as the then Judge of the Transfer Committee of the High
Court – Respondent failed to take into consideration the factors,
which were required to be considered, while deciding the
representation – There is no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has established that her transfer order was in contravention of the
Transfer Policy and that the rejection of her two representations, in
addition of being contrary to the Transfer Policy, were also arbitrary
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
– As such, the petitioner had discharged her burden and the onus is
shifted on the respondent to show that the petitioner’s transfer order
was fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case
– Respondent has failed to discharge its burden – In the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner’s resignation,
could not be construed to be voluntary – Therefore, resignation of
petitioner is quashed and respondent is directed to re-instate the
petitioner.
Constitution of India – Art. 12 – High Court as a State –
While exercising its functions on the administrative side, the MP
High Court would also be a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It could thus be seen that this Court has held
that mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may
not by itself be a distinct enforceable right. It is further held that
the failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the
decision arbitrary. It has been held that the requirement of due
consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the
principle of nonarbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant
of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor
requiring due consideration in a fair decision- making process.
Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or
legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case.
Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not
according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest
wherein other more important considerations may outweigh, what
would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the
claimant. It has been held that a bona fide decision of the public
authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement
of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. It has been
held that the principle of fairness has an important place in the
law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise
of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The
court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised
reasonably and in good faith. [Para 40][80-B-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
59
1.2 It could thus be seen that thou

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