PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 15-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 827 
PRATAP SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2307 OF 2011) 
NOVEMBER 15, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Judicial Service - Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service 
Rules, 1975 - Rule 22 - Appellant, a judicial officer not 
promoted in the substantive vacancy to Uttar Pradesh Higher C 
Judicial Service (UPHJS) and, reverted as Civil Judge (Senior 
Division) - On basis of remarks given by the District Judge 
in the ACR of appellant that he was most irresponsible and 
indisciplined officer - Legality of - Held: Documentary 
evidence on record made it clear that tie remarks of the D 
District Judge that the appellant was, 'irresponsible and 
indisciplined officer who has no regard for superiors or truth' 
had been expunged/substituted by the Inspecting Judge -
The effect of such expunctionlsubstitution was that the 
appellant could not be considered an irresponsible or E 
indisciplined officer on the basis of remarks recorded by the 
District Judge - Due to consideration of the remarks recorded 
by the District Judge and not taking into consideration that 
such remarks were expunged/substituted as communicated 
to the appellant, the very consideration of the appellant's case 
F 
for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under the 
1975 Rules by the selection committee and by the full court 
got seriously and vitally affected - The matter for appellant's 
promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS thus needed 
re-consideration in accordance with law. 
The appellant, a judicial officer, was not promoted in 
the substantive vacancy to Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial 
Service (UPHJS) and, as a result, was reverted as Civil 
Judge (Senior Division). 
827 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A 
The Selection committee did not recommend the 
appellant's name for promotion under Rule 22(1) of the 
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 in view 
of the remarks given by the District Judge in the ACR of 
the appellant. The committee referred to the remarks of 
B the District Judge that the appellant was most 
irresponsible and indisciplined officer. The report of the 
committee was considered by the full court in its meeting 
and the name of the appellant was accordingly not 
approved for appointment in UPHJS under Rule 22 (1) of 
c the 1975 Rules. 
D 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether non-approval of the appellant 
for promotion in the substantive vacancy in UPHJS under 
Rule 22(1) of the 1975 Rules suffered from any illegality. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the remarks recorded 
by the District Judge, Lalitpur in the ACR for 1996-97 
E (June 12, 1996 to March 31, 1997) formed the basis of non-
approval of the appellant'i; name for promotion in the 
substantive vacancy in the UPHJS. That the District 
Judge, Lalitpur rated the appellant in the ACR recorded 
for the above period as an 'irresponsible and indisciplined 
officer' is borne out from the record. Agai.1st the remarks 
F made by the District Judge, the appellant made a 
comprehensive representation to the Registrar on June 
28, 1997. The representation made by the appellant was 
considered by the Inspecting Judge of Lalitpur District. 
Vi de communication dated October 21, 1997, the. 
G appellant was informed that the adverse remarks 
recorded by the District Judge in column No. 1 (e)(iii) -
'disposal of old cases : not satisfactory" and the adverse 
remarks in column no. 1 (e)(iv) -"progress and disposal 
of execution cases: there were three execution cases of 
H 
PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
829 
1996 but no case was disposed of" had been expunged. 
A 
In the above communication, the appellant was also 
informed that column no. 2-"overall assessment of the 
merit of the officer - outstanding, very good, good, fair, 
poor : Poor. Irresponsible and indisciplined officer who 
has no regard for his superiors or truth. Details 
B 
mentioned in column no. 3 below" has been substituted 
by "overall assessment - just average". A careful reading 
of the communication dated October 21, 1997 leaves no 
manner of doubt that the adverse remarks given by the 
District Judge, Lalitpur in column no. 2 that appellant was c 
irresponsible and indisciplined officer for the facts stated 
in column no. 3 no longer remained as it is and were 
substituted by "just average". The consideration of the

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