THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus PRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 13-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PRATAPSINGH DAYAL SINGH RAJPUT 
. JANUARY 13, 1998 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Judicial Officer-Promotion-State of Maharashtra-Civil Judge, C 
Senior Division-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate-Consideration for promotion 
as Additional District Judge-Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorising 
the officer as Grade 'A '-Confidential record. good-No adverse remarks 
ever conveyed to him-Performance at interview good-Name included in 
select list for promotion as Additional District Judge-However, name of 
-< 
officer excluded by full court from the final list sent to Government for D 
appointment-Writ petition filed by the Officer allowed by Division Bench of 
the High Court, holding that in the absence of any material Placed before 
it, decision of High Court in excluding the name of the officer suffers form 
lack of consideration or application of mind to relevant criteria for promotion 
and the decision was clearly violative for Articles I 4 and I 6 of the E 
Constitution of India-Appeal-Meanwhile officer superannuated-Held 
D(vision Bench was right in recording the findings-Appeal dismissed so 
that the officer may be promoted notionally to the post of Additional District 
Judge and may get pensionary benefits on that basis-The question whether 
it was not necessary either to record any reason in the Minutes of the Full 
Court meeting or to disclose those reasons to the Court on the judicial side, F 
left open to be decided in appropriate case-Constitution of India-Articles 
14 and 16. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6224of1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20/24.4.90 of the Bombay High G 
Court in W.P. No. 2464of1987. 
D. M.Nargolkar for the Appellants. 
Uday Umesh Lalit, Makarand D.Adkar, S.D.Singh and Sudhanshu Atreya, 
for the Respondent. 
H 
109 
llO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The Respondent No. I was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division 
on 16.3.1972. He was promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division-cum-Chief 
Judicial Magistrate on 7.9.1983. 
B 
In 1986 process for making selection for purposes of promotion to the 
post of Additional District Judge was initiated by the High Court. On. 20. l 0.1986, 
respondent No. I was called for interview. From the facts found by the High 
Court it appears that the Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorised respondent 
No. I as Grade 'A'. His confidential record was good and no adverse remarks 
were ever communicated to him. His performance at the interview was also 
C good and his name was included in the select list for promotion to the post 
of Additional District Judge. 
The select list prepared by the Interview Committee was considered by 
the Full Court of the Bombay High Court in its meeting on 2nd and 3rd May, 
D 1987. The name of the respondent No. I was, however excluded from the list· 
finally prepared by the Full Court for being forwarded to the State Govt. for 
>- .,. 
appointment on the post of Additional District Judge. 
The exclusion was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed 
before the Bombay the Bombay High Court which by the impugned judgment 
E found that the petitioner's name was included in the select list prepared by 
the Interview Committee but was excluded by the Full Court of the Bombay 
High Court for reasons which are not disclosed to the Court. The High Court 
ultimately by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition 'and directed 
that the name of the petitioner be reconsidered for promotion to the post of 
F 
Additional District Judge. It is against this judgment that the State of 
Maharashtra, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as also the Chief 
Justice have appealed to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal in this 
Court, respondent No. I retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2nd 
ofMay, 1990. 
G 
The Bombay High Court in its judgment has recorded the findings as 
under:-
"In appreciating the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, 
it. has to be held that the specific averments made by the petitioner 
in his petition that he had been given 'A' to his judgments by the 
H 
judgments Scrutiny Committee, that his confidential record was good, 
--( 
STA TE v. P. SINGH D. SINGH RAJ PUT 
111 
that no adverse remarks were communicated to him that his performance A 
in the interview was good, and that his name was in included in the 
sele

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