B A NLGAM CIVIL JUDGE CLASS I SIDHI DISTRICT SIDHI M P Vs. REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who is a Civil Judge working in the Judicial Department of this State, has called in question the promotion of the respondents 3 to 43 to posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges on the ground that, being Civil Judges junior to him in the cadre, they were promoted in circumstances in which his claim for such promotion was not considered.

(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition are, for the most part, not in contest and may be shortly stated. In the Judicial Department of the new State of Madhya Pradesh, there are only three cadres, the cadre of District and Sessions Judges, the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges and the cadre of Civil Judges. While recruitment to the cadres of District and Sessions Judges and the Additional District and Sessions Judges may be sometimes made by direct recruitment in accordance with rules made for the purpose, usually posts in the cadre of Additional District Judges are filled by promotion from Judges holding posts in the next lower cadre and the posts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judges are filled by promotion from amongst Additional District and Sessions Judges.

(3.) AT the stage of arguments, only two points were canvassed for acceptance in support of the claim made in this petition. In order to appreciate them, it is necessary to state that promotion from amongst Civil Judges to the posts in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges was made after considering the case of each Civil Judge on the principle of seniority-cum- merit. That means that every incumbent in the lower cadre was considered for promotion in order of his seniority in that cadre and, upon such consideration, he was promoted only if he was found fit for promotion. If he was not found fit, he was passed over and the claim of the next junior incumbent was similarly considered and so on. The first point according to the petitioner is that he was denied such consideration because, to begin with, the claims of only those Civil Judges, who were exercising powers of Civil Judge, Class I, no matter for how short a period, were considered for promotion. It was contended that the fact that a Civil Judge exercised powers of Civil Judge, Class I, was irrelevant for eligibility for the purpose of being considered for promotion, though it might have a bearing on the question of suitability for promotion on merits. According to the petitioner, this was a denial of equality of opportunity envisaged by Article 16 (1) of the Constitution in a very real sense because, for exercise of powers of Civil Judge, Class I, his juniors had been selected at random in a situation in which neither he nor several of his seniors were even considered for grant of such powers. The second point is that, even after he began exercising the powers of Civil Judge, Class I, from after November 30, 1968, his claims for promotion to posts in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges were not considered on the ground that his juniors, who were promoted, had exercised the powers of Civil Judge, Class I, from earlier dates. This was not so done in the past and the claims of those Civil Judges, who had exercised powers of Civil Judge, Class I, for a period much shorter than that of the petitioner, were considered in order of their seniority in the cadre of Civil Judges and they were even promoted. This also was, therefore, a denial of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the Constitution.