MAHESH SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment.

(2.) THE facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of these two writ petitions, briefly stated, are: FACTS OF MAHESH SINGH's CASE: THE case of the petitioner is that he joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 15. 5. 1973 and was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. Later on, he was confirmed on the post of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. He has submitted that from September 1982 to June 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangaria and from June 1985 to September 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. Bhadra and Sangaria towns are situated in Sri Ganganagar district. THEreafter, from 23. 09. 1985 to December 1985, he worked as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Churu district. According to him, his ACRs of the year 1983-84, 1984-85 were given by the District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar as also by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu and they gave a good chit to him but the Reviewing authority in his APARs of 1983-84 mentioned that his integrity is doubtful. In his APARs of the year 1984, it has been recorded that he is not a good Officer and integrity is doubtful. THE Reviewing Authority has also recorded in his APARs of the year 1985 that he is not a good Officer. He has submitted that these remarks have been made by the Reviewing Authority without any basis. THE aforesaid adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner vide letters dated 11. 6. 1986, 11. 6. 1986 and 16. 8. 1986.

(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, when the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1985, his APARs for the year 1985 and 1986 were not available and so, they could not be communicated to him and therefore, they were not taken into consideration. It was submitted that in M. P. Mittal's case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that even after promotion, if the Officer concerned earned adverse entries then such tike or similar entries which existed against the petitioner prior to the promotions can be considered while considering his further promotion. It was submitted that the decision of the Full Court to consider past 7 years' record does not violate the provisions of any rules. The High Court has already issued Order Annexure-R. l dated 8. 1. 1992 reverting the petitioner as Civil Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and that order, according to respondent No. l, is totally just and fair and, therefore, it cannot be quashed. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be submitted with Costs.