In a recent Judgment of Supreme Court in Sujata Kohli v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Maheshwari expounded that,"Any particular progression depends on comparative merit, and only the persons standing higher in merit have been accorded such progression".
SC Bench further stated that,"not being found eligible for promotion with reference to the criteria as provided is not, by itself, any adverse pronouncement against the diligence and commitment of the appellant".
Apex Court Bench stated that, "........fundamental factor that for the promotions in question, an individual’s minimum merit, by itself, was not going to be decisive; but the relevant factor was going to be comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration".
Facts of the Case:
In resolutuon passed by High Court in April,2010 to the effect that, for the purpose of being selected/promoted\ as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of Higher Judicial Service ought to fulfil the criteria of possessing at least two ‘A’ (very good) and three ‘B+’ (good) in the ACR gradings for the preceding five years from the date of consideration for such appointment.
The resolution was modified by another Full Court resolution dated 15.01.2010 to the effect that for being selected/promoted as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of Higher Judicial Service ought to possess the minimum ‘A’ (very good) grading in ACRs of each of the five years under consideration. DelhiHigh Court submitted that such criteria were adopted as being equivalent to the revised promotion criteria in the Indian Administrative Services.
Post the modification, Court received certain representations, including those from Delhi Higher Judicial Services Association as also from Delhi Judicial Service
Association. These representations were considered by the Full Court of the High Court in its meeting held on 06.07.2010 wherein it was resolved that a Committee be constituted by the Chief Justice to look into the issue of desirability of change of criteria
Upon considering various representations apropos this revision given by the Committee, it was decided to implement the revised criteria in a phased manner over a period of 4 years, from 2009 to 2012.for appointment to the post of District Judge.
Appellants submitted that immediately after noticing the prejudicial requirements of the impugned resolutions, she addressed a representation dated 12.11.2014 to the Chief Justice and the companion judges of the High Court of Delhi for reconsideration of the criteria laid down in the impugned resolutions. It is the contention of the appellant, that no reply was offered on her representation but, on 02.12.2014, she was granted Super Time Scale by the High Court by way of notification.
Grievance of the appellant had been that despite her representations, several appointments were made to the post of Principal Judge, Family Court from the candidates of her batch who were junior in rank to herself as also from the candidates of later batches. Aggrieved that her representations were not considered to review the criteria in question as also by promotion of the incumbents junior to herself, appellant preferred the writ petition before the High Court.
Decision of Delhi HC:
High Court proceeded to reject the contentions of the appellant. However, before concluding, the High Court observed that though the existing system of grading of the judicial officers by the committees comprising of three High Court judges was merited but there being no uniform set of rules or guidelines for the appraisal committees to follow, it was in the fitness of things that to inject greater uniformity and objectivity as also some measure of transparency and
predictability, certain norms and performance indicators be kept in view by the evaluation authorities. The High Court proceeded to broadly lay down such norms and indicators in the penultimate paragraph of its order.
Decision of Supreme Court:
SC Bench while answering the Challenge to Rule 27 of Rules of 1970 stated that,"residuary clause is not of equating the judicial officers with the executive officers but only provides that in regard to the matters for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the Rules of 1970, the relevant rules, directions or orders as applicable to IAS shall regulate the conditions of service of the officers of DHJS. A perusal of the other provisions in the Rules of 1970 makes it clear that reference to the service conditions of the members of IAS is not an anathema to these rules and, on the contrary, wherever necessary, the applicable rules, orders or directions concerning the members of IAS do govern the service conditions of the judicial officers too".
Bench further stated that,"appellant was aware of, and shall always be deemed to be conscious of, the requirement that any promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge or Principal\ Judge, Family Court would only be on the basis of such norms where merit would be a crucial factor and seniority alone would not suffice.
"It follows as a necessary corollary that the appellant was also conscious of the position that while making any such promotion, the assessment would be based on the competitive merit of the candidates in the zone of consideration; and if any candidate in such zone of consideration was possessed of better merit than herself, he would be preferred for promotion", Bench added.
Apex Court stated that,"providing for the norms for assessment of the comparative merits of the candidates in the zone of consideration, was squarely within the domain of the High Court; and infringement of the right of consideration could only be suggested if different yardsticks or different norms were provided and applied qua the similarly circumstanced persons".
SC Bench concluded that,"It is apparent that the case of the appellant was duly considered for such promotion along with the other incumbents but herself and a few others were not promoted for not fulfilling the criteria as provided in the impugned resolutions".
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Tags :
