PRAKASH JAGANNATH MANE Vs. HONBLE REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 25th February 2011 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangli, by which the fourth respondent was appointed as the Registrar of the District Court at Sangli. The case of the petitioner is that his rightful claim to the post of the Registrar has been illegally denied. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though as per the seniority reflected from the gradation list the petitioner is the senior most in the feeder cadre, the fourth respondent who is junior to the petitioner has been illegally appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as a Section Writer on 26th June 1978 and was promoted as the Superintendent on 2nd March 2009. He submitted that the entire career of the petitioner spanning over more than three decades is without any blemish. He pointed out that the promotion is governed by the seniority cum merit rule as is clear from paragraph 580 of the Civil Manual. He urged that no reasons have been assigned by the Selection Committee for ignoring the rightful claim of the petitioner as well as the claim of another candidate who was also senior to the fourth respondent. He submitted that on all earlier occasions, the appointments to the post of the Registrar were made by following the seniority-cum-merit rule. He urged that if relevant paragraphs of Civil Manual are perused, there was no option but to follow the seniority cum merit rule and it was not permissible to hold oral examination of the candidates. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Warehousing Corporation and others Vs. Jagat Ram and another, 2011 3 SCC 422)]. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Samantray Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2004 9 SCC 286.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 invited our attention to paragraph 580 as well as Appendix A of paragraph 577 (iii) of the Civil Manual. He urged that merit cum seniority criteria governs the appointment to the post of Registrar. He submitted that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on plain reading of the provisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the first to third respondents, it is apparent that the merit-cum-seniority rule is not applicable.