Case: Registrar Of High Court Of Madhya Pradesh And Another Vs. B. A. Nigam And Others

the High Court therefore the resolution of the High Court of May 3, 1968 cannot affect him adversely. The High Court took the view that as for some years past, a principle for selection had been introduced that before a Civil Judge was promoted to the post of an Additional District and Sessions Judge, it was essential that he should have exercised the powers of Civil Judge, Class I, for a period, however short and that principle had a rational relation to the suitability of Civil Judges for promotion to posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges and the respondent No. I could not legitimately complain, as he did not have that qualification, and he could not be selected for promotion only on the basis of seniority. They also took the view that since the respondent No. I had not acquired the qualification required for promotion, his claim for such promotion should be regarded as having been considered and rejected by implication till November 30, 1968 when he was allowed to exercise the powers of Civil Judge, Class I. Having held rightly, according to us, that till November 30, 1968 the respondent No. I was not qualified to be considered for promotion as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, the High Court curiously enough issued a writ of mandamus directing that the respondents claim for promotion should be considered in relation to the claims of his juniors and if he was found fit he should be allowed the consequential benefits including fixing of seniority in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges. In mentioning about the juniors of the respondent No. I the learned Judges were referring to the original seniority in the cadre of Civil Judges.3. Once it is found that experience as Civil Judge, Class I, at least for a short period, is a necessary qualification for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge and that such a requirement has a rational relation to the question at issue, it would be surprising to hold that a man, who again and again had been found unfit to be posted as Civil Judge, Class I, in comparison with others, who were his juniors in service, his claim for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge should be decided not on the basis of the date on which he was found fit to exercise the powers of Civil Judge, Class I, but on the basis of the date of his entry into service. Out of the 41 people whom the respondent No. I had made respondent to his petition, 10 people were found fit in 1962 and one in 1963.Then we have 3 others whose claims were considered on 3-5-66 along with that of the respondent No. I and found superior to his. There are 8 others whose claims were compared to the respondents on 12-8-66 and found to be superior to his. Seventeen others, whose claims were compared to the respondents on 17-4-1967 were found to be superior to the respondent and two were found superior to the respondent on 7-11-67.It would, therefore, be most surprising that a man who in comparison to all these people was not found fit to be promoted as Civil Judge, Class I, should as soon as he was found fit on 30-11-68 go over the heads of all the others who were found superior to him on a number of earlier occasions. While it is true that the Service Rules do not provide for Civil Judges being classed as Class I Civil Judges and Class II Civil Judges, we cannot ignore the fact that the jurisdiction of the Class II Civil Judges is only upto Rs. 5,000 and that of Class I Civil Judges upto Rs. 10,000. The resolution of the High Court of May 1968 should not be interpreted literally. If it is done in its proper background it would be appreciated that what was done was not to create a new class of Civil Judges called Class I Civil Judges but to have a list of persons who were qualified to be posted as Class I Civil Judges and to provide that fitness for being posted as Class I Civil Judges and acting as such for some time should be considered as a qualification for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. We have already pointed out that the High Court has rightly held that such a provision cannot be said to be irrelevant to the question of promotion from among the Civil Judges to Additional District and Sessions Judge. We are firmly of opinion that in the face of these circumstances to allow the respondent No. I to be considered for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge in preference to others who had been found better qualified to be posted as Civil Judges Class I much earlier merely on the basis of the date of his entry into service would be a mockery of all canons of fair play and justice. In deed, we cannot help feeling that his being found fit for promotion to Class I Civil Judge on 30-11-68 seems to have been done more as a matter of grace and he should be more than happy to have got what he got. The fact that before 3-5-66 there might have been cases of Civil Judges being posted as Presiding Judges of Civil Courts Class I due to various exigencies of service cannot in any case affect the merits of this case. As we have already indicated, while it is not impossible it is improbable that compared to those people who had been posted as Class I Civil Judges before 3-5-66 the respondent No. I would have been found better qualified. At any rate we can see no justification for reopening cases that had been closed more than 10 years ago at the instance of an officer whose record of service, to say the least, is not a shining one. We see no merits in his claim.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]While it is true that the Service Rules do not provide for Civil Judges being classed as Class I Civil Judges and Class II Civil Judges, we cannot ignore the fact that the jurisdiction of the Class II Civil Judges is only upto Rs. 5,000 and that of Class I Civil Judges upto Rs. 10,000. The resolution of the High Court of May 1968 should not be interpreted literally. If it is done in its proper background it would be appreciated that what was done was not to create a new class of Civil Judges called Class I Civil Judges but to have a list of persons who were qualified to be posted as Class I Civil Judges and to provide that fitness for being posted as Class I Civil Judges and acting as such for some time should be considered as a qualification for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge. We have already pointed out that the High Court has rightly held that such a provision cannot be said to be irrelevant to the question of promotion from among the Civil Judges to Additional District and Sessions Judge. We are firmly of opinion that in the face of these circumstances to allow the respondent No. I to be considered for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge in preference to others who had been found better qualified to be posted as Civil Judges Class I much earlier merely on the basis of the date of his entry into service would be a mockery of all canons of fair play and justice. In deed, we cannot help feeling that his being found fit for promotion to Class I Civil Judge on 30-11-68 seems to have been done more as a matter of grace and he should be more than happy to have got what he got. The fact that before 3-5-66 there might have been cases of Civil Judges being posted as Presiding Judges of Civil Courts Class I due to various exigencies of service cannot in any case affect the merits of this case. As we have already indicated, while it is not impossible it is improbable that compared to those people who had been posted as Class I Civil Judges before 3-5-66 the respondent No. I would have been found better qualified. At any rate we can see no justification for reopening cases that had been closed more than 10 years ago at the instance of an officer whose record of service, to say the least, is not a shining one. We see no merits in his claim.