R S LINGWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 15th January, 1991, Annexure III to the writ petition by which petitioner's representation addressed to Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court, against the adverse entry awarded to him, has been rejected and order dated 17th January, 1991, Annexure IV to the writ petition, by which petitioner has been found not fit for promotion to the higher pay scale. In this writ petition, on 19th March, 1991 a report was called from the Registrar as to whether under rules the learned District Judge can reject the representation filed by petitioner raising grievance against adverse entries awarded to him by learned District Judge. The same day the learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to file counter-affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel appearing today said that looking to the controversy involved in this case no counter-affidavit is required and petition may be heard and decided at this stage for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed. Registrar has submitted his report. I have considered the report of Registrar and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner was awarded bad entry by the learned District Judge. He disagreed with the entry placed before him for the year 1989-90 and by his order dated 1st September, 1990 he awarded the following entry to the petitioner;