SYYED MUTTAQUI RAZA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute has been raised in this writ petition with regard to the appointment on the post of Sadar Munsarim in the Judgeship of Banda. As a preface, it may be mentioned that in the hierarchy of judicial administration at the district-level, the highest official in the ministerial cadre is Senior Administrative Officer which post is filled by promotion from the post of Sadar Munsarim. Sri Vinod Agnihotri, who was Senior Administrative Officer in the Banda Judgeship retired on 30.6.1999, in his place, Sri Aniruddha Krishna Maun who was admittedly working as Sadar Munsarim has been appointed as Senior Administrative Officer on 7.8.1999 by the District Judge, Banda, in this manner, the post of Sadar Munsarim fell vacant. The District Judge, Banda, constituted a committee of three Additional District Judges headed by Ist Additional District Judge. Banda. After screening of the record of the two seniormost officials, namely, the present petitioner and Deen Bandhu Awasthi, the Committee recommended that on the principle of seniority-cum-suitability', Deen Bandhu Awasthi-respondent No. 4, was well suited for appointment as Sadar Munsarim in preference to the petitioner. Accordingly, by order dated 12.8.1999, the District Judge, Banda, appointed Deen Bandhu Awasthi-respondent No. 4 as Sadar Munsarim initially for a period of three months, on probation. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.1999, passed by District Judge. Banda. Annexure-6 to the writ petition, promoting respondent No. 4 to the post of Sadar Munsarim as well as other subsidiary reliefs, including promotion of the petitioner to the said post.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that since he is senior to respondent No. 4 Deen Bandhu Awasthi, his claim for promotion to the post of Sadar Munsarim has been unjustifiably denied. He has made certain averments in the writ petition to Indicate the grounds on account of which the appointing authority was unhappy with him and was out to deprive him of the legitimate claim of promotion in the normal course to the post of Sadar Munsarim.

(3.) Notice of this writ petition was taken by Sri Sunil Ambwani, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 3. Sri Sree Ram Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4 Deen Bandhu Awasihf. Sri Sunil Ambwani on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Sree Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 stated that they shall not file counter-affidavit in view of the fact that the original service record, i.e., the character rolls of the petitioner and Deen Bandhu Awasthi respondent No. 4 as well as the report of the committee have been produced by Sri A. K. Tripathi, Additional District Judge, who was one of the members of the committee. Learned counsel for the parties prayed that the writ petition be disposed of on merits. In view of concession made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition was taken up for final decision at this stage.