SYED T.A. NAQSHBANDI AND ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 09-05-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SYED T.A. NAQSHBANDI AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Jammu and Kashmir Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1983/Jammu and 
C Kashmir District and Sessions Judges (Selection Grade Post) Rules, 1968-
Judicial officers-Grant of selection grade and super-time scale-Writ petition 
challenging the grant as the same was done by-passing senior officers-Norms 
of grant of selection grade and super-time scale formulated in a Full Court 
meeting of High Court-Held: Grant of selection grade and super-time scale 
D justified as the same granted as per the provisions of law governing the 
matter-Guidelines laid down by High Court are not arbitrary or illegal or 
irrational-Shetty Commission's Report cannot be relied on as the same has 
not been carried out in relevant service Rules-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 235. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
F 
Article 32-Judicial Review-Scope of-Held, it is permissible only to 
the extent of finding whether the process in reaching the decision was observed 
correctly and not the decision itself-Critical or independent analysis or 
appraisal of material not permissible. 
Articles 32 and 226--Judicial Review-Of decision of Committee or 
Full Court-Permissibility-Held: Judicial review in such matters not 
permissible except in an extra-ordinary case and not merely because there 
could be another possible view. 
G 
Judicial Discipline: 
H 
Unwarranted, unjustified and unpleasant remarks and allegations casting 
aspertions on constitutional functionaries-Held: Such remarks are not in 
good taste befitting the status of judicial officers, even when they are litigants. 
114 
-
,
SYED T.A. NAQSHBAND! v. ST A TE 
115 
Petitioners filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution A 
seeking quashing of orders granting selection grade and super-time scale 
to 3rd respondent including recommendations for consideration of his 
name for further elevation, and seeking quashing of grant of selection 
grade to respondents 4 and 8 as the criteria for grant of selection grade 
was violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. They also sought for grant B 
of selection grade and super-time scale to petitioners 1 to 3 and grant of 
selection grade to petitioners 4 and 5. 
Petitioners contended that Respondent Nos. 3, 4 to 6 and 8 were 
placed in selection grade by-passing District Judges senior to them; that 
respondent No.3 was not entitled to selection grade as he had never worked C 
as District and Sessions Judge and was not entitled to super-time scale as 
he had put in only nine months service in selection grade; that respondent 
Nos.4 to 6 and 8 were not eligible even for consideration for the grant of 
selection grade as they were not confirmed and had put only 3 years of 
service; that their representation against the orders granting selection 
grade/super-time scale were dismissed without giving any reasons; that D 
the criteria fixed for according selection grade and super-time scale by 
Full Court were not valid in view of recommendations of Shetty Commission 
as modified and accepted in A/l fnqia Judges Association and Ors. v. UO.l. 
(2002] 4 SCC 247; that the ACRs considered for grant of selection grade 
and super-time scale were vitiated as no uniform principles or norms were E 
adopted in adjudging the claims of those whose ACRs were not available 
for one or more period; and that ACRs prepared by Mir Committee were 
rejected without justification. 
Respondents contended that in granting selection grade and super-
time scale, correct provisions of law governing the matter was strictly p 
observed and followed and the norms fixed to regulate the exercise thereof 
were neither arbitrary nor illegal or unconstitutional; that reliance on 
Shetty Commission's Report is misconceived as the same had not so far 
been carried out in the relevant service Rules; and that baseless, 
unwarranted, and indecorous accusations against constitutional 
functionaries by judicial officers are unwarranted and the same should G 
be expunged from records. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD:l. The proceedings relating to the grant of selection grade/ 
H 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A super-time scale are not shown to be vitiated in such a manner as to 
warrant or justify the interference of this Court in these proceedings. 
(129-A, BJ 
2. Grievances must be sufficiently substantiated t

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