SANKET KUMAR KHANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(2.) Facts of the present case are that Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 30/7/2013 to fill up vacancies in respect of SC, ST and OBC candidates for the post of District Judge (Entry Level), Examination 2012. The petitioner appeared in the said examination and was finally selected on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on 6/5/2014. He was appointed as Ninth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raipur on 26/6/2014 on probation for period of two years and he joined on the said post on 1/7/2014. The petitioner was awarded grade- C in the Annual Confidential Report of year 2014-15. Later on, he was transferred to the post of Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Durg on 17/8/2016. Vide order dtd. 30/1/2017, period of probation was extended for period of one year. The petitioner was again awarded grade-C in the Annual Confidential Report of year 2015-16. Vide order dtd. 23/9/2017, period of probation was again extended for period of one year. The petitioner was awarded grade-D in the Annual Confidential Report of years 2016- 17 and 2017-18. Petitioner made a representation for upgradation of Annual Confidential Report on 13/7/2018. Meanwhile, Standing Committee of the High Court of Chhattisgarh vide its meeting dtd. 17/7/2018 resolved to terminate the services of petitioner as he was not found fit for confirmation ; the decision was communicated to Law And Legislative Affairs Department, State of Chhattisgarh and consequently, order impugned was passed on 14/7/2018 whereby services of the petitioner were terminated.

(3.) Mr. Bidya Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was duly appointed as judicial officer and at the relevant time he was working as Additional District Judge, Raipur. He further submits that even if petitioner's services were not found satisfactory, his services could not be dispensed with by the State Government except on the recommendation of the Full Court of the High Court in view of the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh High Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 [for short, 'The HJS Rules'] He contends that Standing Committee so constituted under Rule 4-A read with Rule 4-C (Chapter I-A) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 [for short, 'The Rules of 2007'], had no jurisdiction to make recommendation for termination of the petitioner's services and it is only the Full Court of the High Court which has power and jurisdiction to terminate the services of the probationer, therefore termination of the petitioner's services only on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the High Court is absolutely illegal and bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of High Court of Chhattisgarh Versus Ganesh Ram Berman and Another [WA No. 281 of 2022] and judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the matter of Miss. Akanksha Bhardwaj Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others [WPS No. 2206 of 2017]. He prays to allow this petition.