SUKRM PAL Vs. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having cleared Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Examination, the petitioner, was appointed as Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.07.1995, was promoted as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 11.09.2001, vide order dated 11.09.2001, was designated as Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30.05.2003 and vide order dated 26.03.2009 was appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) by promotion against one of the eight existing temporary posts of Additional District & Sessions Judges (Ad hoc) in the State of Haryana. This promotion was subject to the conditions that the officer would not be entitled for annual grade increment on account of this promotion and as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, 2002 5 SCC 1 "No right will be conferred on judicial officers in service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his/her appointment on ad hoc basis under the Scheme. The service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre." Meaning thereby to earn promotion as Additional District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner was required to pass the prescribed suitability test under Rule 8 of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short, the Rules). The petitioner appeared in the written test and viva voce in the year 2009, then in the year 2010 and then in the year 2011 and his case for promotion to the post of Additional District & Sessions Judge was considered on the basis of his performance in the written test, and viva voce, his judgments, work done statements and annual confidential reports but, unfortunately, on all the three occasions he could not succeed. On account of non-extension of Fast Track Courts beyond 31.03.2011 in the State of Haryana, the petitioner was repatriated to his substantive rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) on bifurcation of posts of Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 31.01.2011 (Annexure P-12), and as per Gradation and Distribution List of Officers of the Judicial Department, Haryana, corrected upto 03.08.2013, the petitioner has been promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge with effect from 21.05.2012 after having passed the suitability test under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules.

(2.) The petitioner claims to have made representation dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P10) followed by another dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure P13) for grant of notional promotion but having tailed to get a response to these representations, he has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, by way of the instant Civil Writ Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer that a writ of Certiorari quashing Rule 6(1) of the Rules saying it to be unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary; and a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to give him notional promotion from the date on which his juniors have been promoted, with all consequential benefits, be issued.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the assertions made in the writ petition.