M S SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Member of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service working as a District and Sessions Judge. He had been recruited directly from the Bar to that post in the year, 1968. Under the Rules regulating the service conditions of the State Higher Judicial Service, the posts of District and Sessions Judge, were divided into two Grades. The initial appointment of the petitioner was to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II. His next post of promotion is that of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I.

(2.) When the petitioner was recruited in the year, 1968, as a District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II he was placed as number one and the third respondent as number two in the list of candidates recommended by the High Court for appointment as District and Sessions Judges. Respondents 4 to 6 had become District and Sessions Judges by promotion from the lower ranks after the petitioner had been appointed as District and Sessions Judge. He was, therefore, undoubted senior to the respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the category of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II. The petitioner been however, overlooked for promotion as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I on three successive occasions. First on 23rd November, 1977, when Respondent No. 3, was promoted under G.O. Rt. No. 4066, G.A.D. (SC. X) As District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I and next on 2nd December, 1977 when respondent No. 4, was promoted under G.O. Rt. No. 4149, G.A.D. (SC. X) and finally on 25th May, 1978 when respondents 5 and 6 had been promoted as District and Sessions Judges, Grade-I, the petitioner was overlooked. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a declaration that the aforesaid orders promoting respondents 3 to 6 as District and Sessions Judges, Grade-I, are void. He also asked for a direction to be issued to the State of Andhra Pradesh and this Court to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I, according to his position of seniority without taking into consideration the adverse remarks communicated to him in the year 1975 and 1976.

(3.) The petitioner stated that he worked as an Additional District Judge and later as the Principal District and Sessions in several parts of the State and held the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hyderabad, Presiding Officer and Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Guntur, Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and Secunderabad and completed a period of nearly ten years as District and Sessions Judge, Grade-II, discharging his duties to the best of his ability. He alleged that there were no adverse remarks in his confidential records at any time during his service till the year, 1975, although he does not deny that the High Court informed him on 30th August, 1976, that his confidential reports for the year, 1975 contained two adverse entries one, that the quality of his work was unsatisfactory and two, that his reputation had not been good in recent years. Similarly, it is admitted before me by the petitioner that the High Court communicated on 29th July, 1977, another adverse entry for 1976 that he should improve his image. The petitioner made a representation on 5th December, 1976, requesting for the expunction of the said remarks for the year, 1975. In his representation to the High Court, the petitioner pointed out that the no judgment of the High Court commenting upon the unsatisfactory nature of his work was brought to his notice. Regarding the second remark, the petitioner complaine'd that the remark was vague and there was no indication as in what respects his reputation was not good. The petitioned, therefore, asked for a personal hearing to explain his position. Against the adverse entry for the year, 1976 the petitioner submitted another representation on 18th August, 1977. and once again asked for a personal hearing protesting against the vagueness of this remark too and absence of evidentiary material.