RAMESHWAR PRASAD versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 31-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
c 
D 
456 
RAMESHW AR PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
August 31, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Supersession for promotion as Additional District Judge-Challenge under 
Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16-When can arise. 
MaUc~Plea of malice not taken or 1nade out in the Petition cannot be 
'taken notice of when argued. 
The petitioner challenged the order of the High Court recommending his 
supersession by promoting other Sub-judges as Additional District Judges, and 
also the acc'eptance thereof by the Government, on the ground that his judicial 
career was without any blemish and therefore, the impugned orders were in 
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that there was a colour 
.Jf malice in the recomm'endation by the High Court. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. All that Artide 16 requires is that the case of the employees 
similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before others 
are promoted. 
The petitioner must establish that his case was not considered 
at all and persons junior to him were promoted without ony reason. [457D-E] 
E 
In this case, Article 16 is not violated as his case for promotion was fully 
(I' 
considered bY the High Court and the Government and then it was decided 
not to promote him. At any rate, since the High Court is the best judge of 
the performance of its officers and if th'e High Court was not satisfied about 
the suitability of the Petitioner having regard to his past record, for promotion 
Art. 16 is not attracted and this Court would not, therefore interfere at this 
•tage. 
[457B-C, 458A-Bl 
(b) The petitioner and other Sub-judges not being similarly situate as 
being of equal merit the question of discrimination or infraction of Article 14 
of the Con•titution also does not arise. [457H, 458ABJ 
Supreme Corirt cannot take notice of a1legation of malice as an argument 
when no such plea has 11een taken in the petition or proved in the affidavit filed 
G 
in support of the petition. [458B] 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1978. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
Sarjoo Prasad, (Dr.) Y. S. Chitale and M. L. Verma · for the 
Petitioner. 
U. P. SinKh and S. N. Iha for Respondent No. 1. 
S. V. Gupte and B. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2. 
.--J 
. 
\ • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
RAMESHWAR v. BIHAR (Fazal Ali, !.) 
457 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. This petition under Article 32 has been filed 
against the order of the Governor of Bihar accepting recommendations 
of the High Court and superseding the petitioner Rameshwar Prasad 
by promoting other subordinate Judges as Additional District Judge, 
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing in support of the petitioner mainly 
raised two points before us. In the· first place it was contended that 
the judicial career of the petitioner was without any blemish and there 
was nothing against hlm to justify his supersession when the High 
Court recommended the case of promotion of the Sub-Judges for 
appointment as Additional District Judge 
and hence 
the 
order 
impugned is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. There is, how-
ever, abundant material on the record to show that the case of the 
petitioner was fully considered by the High Court and he was not con-
sidered fit for promotion by the High Court, hence his case was not 
recommended for promotion as Additional District Judge. 
In this 
view of the matter it is manifest that Article 16 cannot be violated 
because the petitioner's case for promotion was fully considered by the 
High Court and the Government and then it was decided not to pro-
mote him. All that Art. 16 requires is that the case of employees 
similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before 
others are promoted. If it was established that the petitioner's case was 
not considered at all and persons junior to him were promoted with-
out any reason, then something could be said in support of the peti-
tioner's case. It would appear from the affidavit filed by the High Court 
that the Government considered the ca~e of the petitioner. The aver-
:nent in para 14 of the affidavit filed by the High Court runs : 
"It is incorrect to say that there was any departure from 
any common usual practice in sending the second proposal 
though final orders on the first proposal were not passed 
by the State Government specially in the context that at the 
time of sending the 

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