THE HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA versus AMAL KUMAR ROY

Citation: [1963] 1 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 09-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
t s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
437 
to determine the precise area covered by the struc-
tures a.ad the pasuges separating these various 
structures. We agree with him. It would be suffi· 
dent to direct the Government to settle with the 
respondent the whole of the land covered by the 
structures as well as land appurtenant to those 
structures from out of Khasra. No. 61/l. What the 
area of th:it land would be is a matter to be deter-
mined during the st1ttlement proceedings. With this 
modifi0ation we dismiss the appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismis8ed. 
THE HIGH COUR~L·, CALCUTTA 
v. 
AMAL KUMAH, B.OY 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAH., 
J. R. 
MuDHOLKAH, 
and 
T. L. VENl{ATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
StateJu<licial Service-Power of High Oourt-Super8ession 
of seniority of Munsif in promotion-If punishment or penalty-
Suit, if lies-Constitution of ln<lia, Arts .. 'J35, 311(2), 320(3)(c}, 
14,16( 1)-0ivil Services (Classification, Control ana Appeal) 
Rules rr. 49, 55A. 
This was an appeat by special leave by the Judges of the 
Calcutta High Court against the decision of the City Civil 
Court at C.ilcutta decreeing the respondent l's suit. That 
respondent was a Munsif in the West Bangal Civil Service 
(Judicial) and had issued an injunction in his own favour in a 
case where he was the'plaintiff. That order of injunction was 
set aside in appeal by the appellate Court. 
When the cases of 
several Munsif came up for consideration before the High 
Court for inclusion of names in the panel officers to officiate 
as Subordinate Judges, the respondent l's name was excluded. 
He was told by the Registrar of the Court on a representation 
made by him that the Court had decided to consider his case 
after a year. 
As . the result of such exclusion respondent I , 
who was then the seniormost in the list of Munsifs, lost eight 
places in the cadre of Subordinate Judges before he was 
196! 
Stale of Bombay 
"· 
Sardir Venleat Rao 
K' rishna Ra• Guj11r 
.lludholkar J. 
1962 
April 9. 
-
1961 
TM Hfgh Court, 
Calcutta 
•• 
A.mrl· K~m.,,. Roy 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] 
actually appointed to_ act as an Additional Subordinate Judge. 
His case in substance was that this exclusion by the High 
Court ";m~~nt~d in J~~ to _the penalty o~ "withholding of 
promotion without g1v1ng htm an opportunity to show catise 
and he prayed that a declaration might be made that he 
occupied the same position in respect of seniority in the cadre 
of Subordinate Judges as he would have done if no supersession 
had taken place and claimed- arr<ars of •alary payable to a 
Subordinate Judge. The trial Court decreed the suit. 
A 
preliminary objection was taken in this Court on behalf of the 
ppellants that the controversy raised was not justiciable. 
Held, that there was no cause of action for the :suit and 
the appeal must succeed. 
There could be no doubt that under Art. 235 of the 
Constitution the High Court was the sole authority to decide 
the fitness of a Munsif to be appointed as a Subordinate Judge 
and the exercise of its power was not justiciable. 
Article 235, read with the service rules, clearly showed 
that a Munsif had no right to promotion that could be 
enforced through court. Rule 55A of the Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules had no application 
to the State of West Bengal and r. 49 conferred no right to 
promotion but only a safeguard -against imposition of any 
punishment by way of withholding of promotion without 
adequate opportunity to show eause and operated only when 
there was a disciplinary proceeding. 
It was not correct to say that the High Court should 
have consulted the State Public Service Commission since 
Art. 
320(3)(c) of the 
Constitution also 
contemplated 
disciplinary matters. 
Nor was it correct to say that the respondent 1 was 
reduced in rank as a result of the High Court's action within 
the meaning of Art. 311(2) of the ·constitution. The word 
'rank' in Art. 311 (2) ref~rred to classification and not to a 
particular place in the same cadre in the hierarchy of a service. 
All Subordinate Judges were in the same cadre and held die 
same rank irrespective of seniority. Losing some ·places in the 
seniority list, therefore, did not amount to reduction in -rank. 
Nor were Arts. 14 and 16(1) violated. Equal opportunity 
did not mean getting the particular post for which a number 
of pcnons was considered. So loni: as one wa1 equally 
considered along with other

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