KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India against order dt.30.09.2004 issued by the State Government on the basis of the recommendation made by the High Court dispensing with services of the petitioners u/R.24(1) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, who were working as Probationer Judicial Officer.

(2.) Both the writ petitions D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1993/2006 and D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.267/2005 are simultaneously heard and since the petitioners are Probationer Judicial Officer and aggrieved by the order dt.30.09.2004, with the consent of the parties the writ petitions are decided by the present common order.

(3.) The brief facts of the case culled out from the averments made in the writ petitions are that after being selected through Rajasthan Public Service Commission the petitioners were appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the cadre of the Rajasthan Judicial Service vide order dt.16.07.2002 on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining and pursuant thereto they joined service and the period of probation of all the officers was extended for a period of two months vide order dt.28.07.2004. However, overall performance of the petitioner along with 91 other RJS Officers was considered for confirmation by the Committee of five Hon'ble Judges, constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice that includes integrity of Officer, his work, knowledge of law, conduct & behaviour on the basis of reports submitted by the respective District Judges and Hon'ble Inspecting Judges, ACR and further outcome/report of the complaints submitted by the Registrar (Vigilance) and after due discussion & deliberation, the Committee of Hon'ble Judges resolved to recommend confirmation of 90 RJS Officers and probation of one Officer was extended by six months and as regards the present petitioners are concerned, both were not found fit for confirmation in the Judicial Service. The said report of the Committee was placed before the Full Court, as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice where it came to be confirmed and the final recommendation was sent to the State Government holding that the petitioners are not found fit for confirmation and on the recommendation made by the High Court u/R.24(1) of the Rules, 1955, their services were dispensed with because of their unsuitability for the post by the State Government vide order of termination simpliciter dt.30.09.2004 and that is subject matter of challenge in the instant petitions.