SMT. BEENA TIWARI & ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 18-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. BEENA TIWARI & ANR. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. ETC. 
DECEMBER 18, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.) 
. Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and Quasi· 
Permanent) Service Rules, 1960: Sections 3A and 12-Whether Section 
33-A applicable to members of the Subordinate Judicial Service. 
c 
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (ClOJsification Requirement & 
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955: Rule 16-Civil Judge~Appointed 
on temporary and officiating basis-Confirmation of-Sole concern of 
the High Court under Art. 235 of the Constitution of India. 
The appellants in C.A. Nos. 59 and 60 of 1982, who were 
D appointed as Civil Judges on temporary and officiating basis on proba-
tion, were not confirmed after the expiry of the period of probation or 
the extended period of probation, and their services were terminated by 
the State Government under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesb Govern· 
ment Services (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960. 
They filed writ petitions before the High Court, challenging the orders 
E of termination of service as illegal and invalid, contending that in view 
of Rule 3-A, providing that a Government servant In respect of whom a 
declaration under cl. (ll) of Rule 3 bad not been issued, but bad been In 
temporary service continuously for live years in a service or post in 
respect of which such declaration could be made, shall be deemed to be 
in quasi-permanent service unless for reasorui to be recorded in writing 
F they should be de~med to be in Quasi-Permanent Service, since no 
declaration under cl. (ii) of Rule 3 had been issued and they had been in 
service continuously for live years. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended tbattbe qnestion of 
conhrmation came within the purview of Article 235 of the Constitntion 
G vesting in the High Court control over subordinate courts and, conse· 
quently, the provision of Rule 3·A had no application to the members of 
the Subordinate Judicial Service. 
A Division Bench of the Hi&h Court took the view that if in Rule 
3·A in place of the words "appointing authority" the words "compe· 
H tent authority" be read it would be consistent with Article 235 of the 
492 
) 
SMT. BEENA TIWARI v. STAIB OF M.P. 
493 
Constitution, and dismissed the writ petitions holding that the resolu-
tion passed in the Court meeting, adjudicating the appellants unfit for 
confirmation, satisfied the requirement of Rule 3-A as continuance in 
Quasi-Permanent capacity was included within the ambit of confirma-
tion. 
The services of the respondent in C.A. No. 2860of1985 were also 
terminated under Rule 12 of the Rules. In the writ petition filed by him, 
the Full Bench of the High Court, while approving the aforesaid view 
expressed by the Division Bench, held that the findings of the High 
__ Court in its resolution, considering the respondent unfit for confirma-
tion, could not be regarded as reasons within the meaning of Rule 3-A, 
and quashed the impugned termination order. 
Disposing of the appeals, 
HELD: Whether a member of Subordinate Judicial Service 
should be confirmed or not is absolutely the concern of the High Court. 
A 
B 
c 
The question of confirmation falls squarely within Article 235 of the o 
Constitution and no rule framed by the State Government can interfere 
with the control vested in the High Court under Rule 235. [498A-B) 
B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1981) 1 SCR 1024 and High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana v. State of Haryana, [1975) 3 SCR 365 
relied on. 
E 
Both the Full Bench and the Division Bench were wrong in placing 
reliance upon Rule 3-A of the M.P. Government Service (Temporary 
and Quasi-Permanent) Rules, 1960. As the High Court did not confirm 
the officials, the question of their being deemed to be in Quasi-Per-
manent Service does not arise. Further, as the question of confirmation 
F 
was completely within the domain of the control of the High Court 
under Article 235 of the Constitution, there is no necessity to read the 
words "competent authority" in place of "appointing authority", for 
Rule 3::.A was inapplicable to the members of the Subordinate Judicial 
Service. Moreover, there is a specific provision in the termination of 
service of a Judicial Officer who is found by the High Court to be unfit G 
for confirmation as provided in Rule 16(5) of the Madhya Pradesh 
Judicial Service (Classification, Requirement & Conditions of Service) 
Rules, 1955. [498D-F) 
Alth

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