REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus B. A. NIGAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 03-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

878 
REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT OF 
MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER 
JI. 
B. A. NIGAM AND OTHERS 
April 3, 1973 
[0, G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ,] 
Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958-Service Rules-Experience 
a.r Civil Judge, Class.J, necessary qualification for promotion to the poM 
of Addi. District f.'nd Sessions Judge, and not the seniority. 
The Respondent No. I, who was a Civil Judge in former Madhya 
Bharat, was, on absorption into Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, treated 
a' Civ;l Judge, Class-II. The relevant Service Rules applicable to the 
Civil Judges recognised Civil Judges as only one Class but the M. P. 
Civil Courts Act, 
1958, 
mentioned 
two 
classes of Civil 
Judges 
namely, 
Civil 
Judges 
Class I 
and 
Civil 
Judges 
Class 
II. 
From the t;me when the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 C8llle 
into fOrce it was always considered by the High Court that for promotion 
to the post of Addi. District and Sessions Judge, it was a necessary 
qualification that the Civil Judge must have sonie experM:nce of working 
as Civil Judge, Chlss-1. Under the Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of 
the Civil Judge, Class I was Rs. 10,000/- while that of Civil Judge. 
Class II was Rs. 5,000/-. 
In May 1968, the High Court passed 
as 
Reso1utio,o laying down that the seledtion of a Civil Judge, Class-II, as· 
a Civil Judge Class I shall be deemed '" promotion and ·that being so,. 
only the cases of Civil Judges, Class-I, shall be considered for promotion 
:ls Addl. Drntrict and Sessions Judges in order of their seniority. The 
respondent was not found fit for promotion to the post of Civil Judge, 
Class-I in the successive selections. 
He was finally 'found fit in 1968. 
In a writ petition before the M. P. High Court, the Respondent No. 1 
contended that the date of the seniority should count from the date of 
appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cfass-IJ and not from the date 
of promotion to the post of Civil Judge, Class-I. He also contended 
that the High Court Resolutio:t> of May 3, 1968, was illegal as there 
was no provi~ion in the Service Rules for classifying Civil 
Judges 
as 
Class I or Ciass II and the power to create various classes of services 
\V'&S vested ir.. the Government, and not in the High Court. The 11. P. 
High Court allowed the Writ Petition. 
Allowing the State's appeal by certificate, 
HELD : ( 1) On perusal of the High Court file regarding the selection 
of Class JI Civil Judges as Class I Civil Judges, it is clear that the 
decisions \Vere bona fide a;'nd on merits. 
The Respondent No. 1 had 
no claim to Class I post before 1968, when for the first time ·he was 
found fit. 
Once it is found that experience as Civil Judge Class I is a 
necessary qualification, the seniority in Class II service ·is of no conse-
quence. 
( 2) While it is true that the Service Rules do not provide for any 
distinction within Civil Judges, the difference in· the pecuniary jurisdic-
i; _,n cannot be ignored. The Resolution of the High Court of May 1968 
should not be interpreted literally. 
The resolution does· not create a new 
class of Ci,il Judges called Class I Civil Judges but merely lays down 
the c:ualification or standard of fitness for higher promotion. 
There is 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
REGISTRAR M.P. !UGH COURT v. B. A. N!GAM 
879 
(Alagiriswami, J.) 
no justification for re-opening cases closed for more than ten years at 
the instance of an officer whose record of service was not a shining one: 
compared to those who were selected earlier. [880A, 881G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 624 of 
1972. 
Appeal by certifica'le from the Judgment and order dated 
August 8, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh :ltigh Court at Jabalpur 
in Misc. Petition No. 537 of 1969. 
I. N. Shroff, for the Appellants. 
M. N. Phadke, Anthoney G. Menezes, P. G. Bhartari, I. B. 
Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur & Ravinder Narain, for respondent 
No. 1 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-In the Judicial Service of Madhya Pradesh 
there are three classes of officers, Civil Judges, Additional District 
and Sessions Judges and District Judges but under the Madhya 
Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 there are four classes of Civil 
Courts, the Coutt of the District Judge, the Court of the Addi. 
District Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge (Class I) and the 
Court of the Civil Judge (Class II). The respondent No. I, Shri 
B. A. Nigam, entered service as a Civil Judge on 20-lG-1956 in 

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