N.C. DAS versus GAUHATI HIGH COURT THR. REGISTRAR & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 11-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2012) 1 S.C.R. 128 
N.C. DAS 
v. 
GAUHATI HIGH COURT THR. REGISTRAR & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 31 of 2004) 
JANUARY 11, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L GOKHALE, JJ.] 
SERVICE LAW: 
c 
Promotion - Denial of - Judicial service - Member of 
Tripura Judicial Service (Grade-I/) - Critaria for promotion 
being merit-cum-seniority - Held: In view of the remarks in the 
ACRs of the officer for three years immediately preceding the 
date of consideration of the officer's promotion, that he was 
0 not found fit for promotion, it cannot be said that he was wrongly 
denied promotion to Grade-I - Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 
1974 - r.7. 
Retirement - Judicial service - Member of Tripura Judicial 
Service - On completion of 58 years of age, service not 
E extended upto 60 years - Held: Clause (B) has overriding 
effect over Clause (A) of the amended r.20 of the Tripura 
Judicial Service Rules, 2003 - Petitioner is not entitled to the 
relief - Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 - r. 20(A) and (B) .. 
F 
In the Instant writ petition and the interlocutory 
application filed by a member of Trlpura Judicial Service 
(Grade-II) and holding the post of Civil Judge (Senior 
Division), the Issue for consideration before the Court 
was the propriety of: (i) denial of promotion to the 
G petitioner to Grade-I; and (ii) not extending the service of 
l'1e petitioner upto the age of sixty years under r. 20(8) 
of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003. 
H 
Dismissing the writ petition and the interlocutory 
application, the Court 
128 
N.C. DAS v. GAUHATI HIGH COURT THR. 
129 
REGISTRAR & ORS. 
HELD: 1. According to r.7(1) of the Tripura Judicial A 
Service Rules, 1974, appointment to the post of Grade-I 
and Grade-II by promotion from the next grade below 
shall be made on the ground of merit-cum-seniority. In the 
petitioner's ACRs for the last three years, I.e., 2000, 2001 
and 2002, lm1;iediately preceding the date of B 
consideration of his case for promotion, it has been 
recorded that he was not found fit for promotion. Based 
on these remarks In the ACRs, if the petitioner has been 
denied promotion in July 2003, such action can hardly be 
faulted. The remarks In ACRs do enable the authority to c 
assess comparative merit once the question of promotion 
arises when the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-
seniority. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has 
been wrongly denied promotion to Grade-I. (para 6) (131· 
E-H; 132-A·C] 
D 
2.1. The mode and manner of assessment and 
evaluation of the potential of continued utility is 
prescribed in r. 20(8)(1) of the Tripura Judicial Service 
Rules, 2003. Clause (B) of r. 20 of the 2003 Rules, as 
amended in 2006, makes It clear that the High Court is 
E 
empowered to assess and evaluate the record of a 
judicial officer for continued utility in service upto 60 
years. Clause (B) has overriding effect over Clause (A) of 
the said rule. This is clear from the expression 
"Notwithstanding anything contained In Clause (A)" with 
F 
which Clause (B) begins. (para 10) (134-E..f] 
2.2. No legal flaw has been pointed out to the 
exercise undertaken by the High Court In respect of the 
assessment and evaluation of the petitioner's service for G 
continued utility in service upto 60 years. [para 10) (134· 
F-G] 
All India Judges' Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India 
& Ors., 2002 (2) SCR 712 =2002 (4) SCC 247 ·referred to. 
H 
A 
B 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012) 1 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference: 
2002 (2) SCR 712 
referred to 
para 4 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
31of2004. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Manoj Swarup, Hiren Dasan, Uday Gupta, Harish Dasan, 
Suvendu S. Das, Preshit Surshe, Salra Chandra for the 
C Petitioner. 
D 
Vijay Hansaria, P.I. Jose, Sneha Kalita, Anupam Mishra, 
Rituraj Biswas (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondents. 
The Judg·ment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. The petitioner on the date of filing the· 
Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was a 
member of Tripura Judicial Service (Grade II) and was holding 
the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Assistant Sessions 
E Judge, North Tripura. He has prayed for diverse reliefs in the 
Writ Petition, including the direction to the High Court to 
incorporate "court suitability test" in the Tripura Judicial Service 
Rules, 2003 (for short, '2003 Rules') and further direction that 
the petitioner should be considered f

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