DWIJENDRANATH ROY BARMAN Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL­CUM-SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FELLOW judicial officers from another jurisdiction appeal to the judicial side of the High Court to right the perceived wrongs committed by the High Court in its administrative side. Since there is an element of commonality in these matters, the four petitions have been taken up for hearing together. The issues which arise in the latest of the four petitions are somewhat different from those in the three other matters. The three other matters are more or less identical.

(2.) THE petitioner in the matter recorded first above complains of being unfairly treated in the matter of promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service. The three other petitioners claim seniority as District Judges for varying periods prior to their promotion in the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service on the ground of their having discharged functions as District Judges in presiding over fast track courts. All the petitioners rely on the Supreme Court dictum in the judgment reported at (2012) 6 SCC 502 (Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India). According to the petitioner in the first recorded matter above, paragraph 207.13 of such Supreme Court judgment required weightage to be given to the petitioner, for the petitioner having functioned as a fast track court judge for several years, at the time of considering his promotion as a District Judge in the Higher Judicial Service. The three other petitioners rely on the same direction at paragraph 207.13 of the Supreme Court judgment to claim notional seniority prior to their promotion as District Judges in the Higher Judicial Service.

(3.) THE first of the petitioners above named (hereinafter referred to as the first petitioner) does not indicate in the petition as to when he joined the service. His petition begins with a reference to a notification of August 18, 2006 issued by this court pursuant to an order of May 12, 2006 passed by the Supreme Court in the Brij Mohan Lal case. By such notification, 32 officers in the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) were named "for appointment on ad hoc promotion to West Bengal Higher Judicial Service to fill up 32 Fast Track Courts ..." The first petitioner was the 19th named in the notification. The first petitioner next refers to a Supreme Court order of January 4, 2007 passed in (Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) reported at (2008) 17 SCC 703. In the light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India reported at (2002) 4 SCC 274, directions were issued for filling up vacancies in the cadre of District Judge and a calendar was set indicating specific milestones to be achieved by certain dates every year. For filling up vacancies in the cadre of District Judge by regular promotion, the Supreme Court directed the assessment to be made on the basis of the Annual Confidential Reports of the last five years; the evaluation of judgments furnished by the eligible officers; and, the performance at the oral interview.