Sujata Kohli vs Registrar General High Court Of … on 24 April, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Sujata Kohli vs Registrar General High Court Of … on 24 April, 2020

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari

                                                                                REPORTABLE

                                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2374 OF 2020
                               (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 24206 OF 2018)


                 SUJATA KOHLI                                      ….APPELLANT(S)


                         Vs.


                 REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT
                 OF DELHI & ORS                                          ….RESPONDENT(S)


                                                        JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari J.

PRELIMINARY AND BRIEF OUTLINE

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and

order dated 21.08.2018 as passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

in W.P. (C) No. 3157 of 2015, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition

filed by the appellant, a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service 1, seeking

to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial

Service Rules, 19702 and the Full Court resolutions dated 28.04.2009,
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2020.04.24
16:20:13 IST
Reason:

1 ‘DHJS’ for short.

2 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Rules of 1970’.

1
15.01.2010 and 27.01.20113 concerning the criteria for appointment of a

member of higher judicial service to the post of District Judge and Sessions

Judge or its equivalent.

3. While passing the order impugned, the High Court upheld the

gradual implementation of the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of

District and Sessions Judge or equivalent with reference to the gradings in

the Annual Confidential Reports4 in five years preceding the base year of

consideration. However, while concluding on the matter, the High Court also

made certain observations on desirability of uniform norms for award of

such gradings; and issued directions for evolving uniform grading system

for future implementation.

RELEVANT RULES AND FULL COURT RESOLUTIONS

4. For comprehension of the principal submissions and the issues

raised in this appeal, appropriate it would be to take note of the relevant

rules and the relevant part of the impugned resolutions at the outset.

4.1. The relevant provisions concerning recruitment to the posts in the

cadre of Higher Judicial Service are contained in Rule 7 in the Rules of

1970. Rule 7(1), in its present form, reads as under:-

“7. Regular recruitment.- (1) Recruitment to the posts in the
cadre of District Judge at Entry Level shall be as under:

(a) 65 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges
(Senior Division), having a minimum ten years service in the
cadre of Delhi Judicial Service, on the basis of principle of
merit-cum-seniority;

3 Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the impugned resolutions’.
4 ‘ACR’ or ‘ACRs’ for short

2

(b) 10 percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit
through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges
(Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying
service; and

(c) 25 percent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment
from amongst the persons eligible as per rule 7C on the basis
of the written and viva voce test, conducted by the High
Court.”

4.1.1. The provisions contained in Rule 7A of the Rules of 1970, as

substituted by the notification dated 27.10.2009 and amended by notification

dated 22.12.2011 could also be noticed as under:-

“7A. Selection for Promotion on the basis of merit and
suitability.- Recruitment by promotion under clause (a) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 above shall be made by selection on
the basis of merit-cum-seniority.”

4.1.2. The matters relating to appointment, probation and confirmation are

provided in Rules 12 to 15 in Part IV of the Rules of 1970, which are as

follows:–

“12. (1) Persons appointed to the service at the initial
recruitment shall stand confirmed with effect from the date of
appointment.

(2) All other candidates on appointment to permanent post
shall be on probation for a period of two years.
EXPLANATION: – The period during which an officer holds a
temporary post will be counted towards probation but he will
be confirmed only when a permanent post is available.

13. All persons appointed’ to the service on probation shall be
confirmed at the end of the said period of two years.
Provided that the Administrator may, on the
recommendation of the High Court, extend the period of
probation, but in no case shall the period of probation extend
beyond the period of three years.

14. The services of a person appointed on probation are
liable to be terminated without assigning any reason.

3

15. After successful completion of the period of probation the
officer shall be confirmed in the service by the Administrator
in consultation with the High Court .and the same shall be
notified in the Delhi Gazette.”

4.1.3. In Part VI of the Rules of 1970, the provisions regarding pay and

allowances have been made; and these provisions also specify the method

of assessment for granting Selection Grade and Super Time Scale. Rules

18 to 20 in this Part VI read as under5: –

“18. The pay scales of the Service shall be as follows:

               1         District Judges Entry level                       Rs,16750
               .         Time Scale (Addl. District                        -400-
                         Judges)                                           19150-
                                                                           450-
                                                                           20500
               2         Selection Grade [limited to                       Rs,18750
               .         25% of cadre posts of                             -400-
                         District Judges Entry level                       19150-
                         Time      Scale     (Additional                   4502185
                         District Judges) and will be                      0-500-
                         given to those having not                         22850
                         less than five years of
                         continuous service in the
                         cadre on assessment of
                         merit-cum-seniority]
               3         District Judges (Super time                       Rs,22850
               .         scale) (This scale would also                     -500-
                         be available to 10% of the                        24850
                         cadre strength of District
                         Judges, and would be given
                         to those who have put in not
                         less than three years of
                         continuous       service     in
                         selection       grade       on
                         assessment of merit-cum-
                         seniority)

19. The initial pay of a direct recruit shall be the initial pay in
the time scale mentioned in rule 18.

5 Rule 18 came to be substituted by way of the notification dated 22.10.2008.

4
Provided that the Administrator may, on the
recommendation of the High Court, give advance increments
to suitable candidates appointed to the service.

20. The pay of a promoted officer shall be fixed in the
aforesaid time scale in accordance with the financial rules,
regulations, orders, or directions, applicable from time to
time, to members of the lAS.”

4.1.4. We may also take note of Rule 26 in Part VII of the Rules of 1970

which reads as under: –

“26. Direct recruits will have to produce before appointment a
certificate of physical fitness in accordance with the
standards prescribed for the lAS.”

4.1.5. Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970, providing for residuary matters, that

had been questioned by the appellant as being ultra vires, reads as under: –

“27. RESIDUARY MATTERS:- In respect of all such matters
regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or
insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules,
directions or orders for the time being in force, and applicable
to officers of comparable status in the Indian Administrative
Service and serving in connection with the affairs of the
Union of India shall regulate the conditions of such service.”

5. Having taken note of the rules that are directly relevant for the case

at hand as also the rules that may have some bearing on the issues raised,

we may now refer to the Full Court resolutions which form the subject

matter of this litigation.

5.1. In its Full Court meeting dated 28.04.2009, the High Court adopted

a resolution to the effect that, for the purpose of being selected/promoted

as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of Higher Judicial Service

ought to fulfil the criteria of possessing at least two ‘A’ (very good) and

three ‘B+’ (good) in the ACR gradings for the preceding five years from the

5
date of consideration for such appointment. This Full Court Resolution

dated 28.04.2009 reads as under:-

“Discussed. It was resolved as under:-

(i) The following shall be adopted as the zone of
consideration for selection of officers for appointment as
District Judges:-

                 No.     of                   No. of officers
                 Vacancies                    within zone of
                                              consideration
                     1                               5
                     2                               8
                     3                              10
                     4                              12
                     5                              14
                     6                              16
                     7                              18
                     8                              20
                     9                              22


In the case of Sessions Judge, the zone of consideration
would be restricted to officers already appointed as District
Judges including on proforma basis.

(ii) The officers who would be, or likely to be, in the zone of
consideration for appointment/selection to the post of District
Judge in a particular year shall be under the control of the
Committee of Inspecting Judges headed by Hon’ble the Chief
Justice in the preceding year and in the year in question.

(iii) For evaluation of such officers, as are mentioned in the
preceding clause, detailed remarks shall be recorded in the
ACRs by the Committee mentioned above.

(iv) For evaluation of the officers within the zone of
consideration for “selection by merit”, the following criteria
shall be taken into account:-

(a) ACR grading for the last 5 years in which the gradings for
at least 2 years (including the 5th year) must be minimum “A”
(Very Good), the officer having secured in the remaining 3
years no less than “B+” (Good) grading. However, in the

6
case of SC/ST officers, this criteria shall be relaxed so as to
require minimum “B+” (Good) grading in each of the 5 years.

(b) Vigilance report.

(c) Disposal figures for the last 5 years.

(d) Administrative capabilities.

(e) General reputation for honesty & integrity and conduct.”

5.2. However, the prescription aforesaid was modified by another Full

Court resolution dated 15.01.2010 to the effect that for being

selected/promoted as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of Higher

Judicial Service ought to possess the minimum ‘A’ (very good) grading in

ACRs of each of the five years under consideration. It had been the case of

the respondent High Court that such criteria were adopted as being

equivalent to the revised promotion criteria in the Indian Administrative

Services6. The relevant part of the said resolution dated 15.01.2010 reads

as under:-

“(a) The clause regarding relaxation in ACR gradings for
SC/ST officers is deleted.

(b) The criteria in para 9(iv) (a) is modified so as to require
ACR gradings for each of the five years under consideration
to be minimum ‘A’ (Very Good) for all categories.”

5.3. As against the aforesaid resolution dated 15.01.2010, the High

Court received certain representations, including those from Delhi Higher

Judicial Services Association as also from Delhi Judicial Services

Association. These representations were considered by the Full Court of the

High Court in its meeting held on 06.07.2010 wherein it was resolved that a

Committee be constituted by the Chief Justice to look into the issue of

desirability of change of criteria for appointment to the post of District

Judge. Pursuant to this resolution, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High
6 ‘IAS’ for short

7
Court, by his order dated 27.08.2010, constituted a committee comprising

of four Hon’ble Judges. This Committee, in its report dated 08.10.2010,

recommended for implementation of the revised criteria in a phased manner

as under:-

“We find that the post of District Judge is to be manned by
officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service in Super Time Scale
of Rs.22850-24850 (pre-revised). Having regard to the
revised guidelines as circulated vide Govt. of India, DoPT
O.M. No. 22011/3/2007-Estt(D) dated 18th February 2008
wherein it has been mentioned that the DPC may ensure that
for promotion to the scale of Rs.18,400-22,400 (pre-revised)
and above, the prescribed benchmark of ‘Very Good’ is
invariably met in all ACRs of five years under consideration,
we are of the opinion that the existing criteria for appointment
to the post of District Judge requiring ACR gradings for each
of the five years under consideration to be minimum ‘A’ ‘Very
Good) for all categories, should be maintained. However,
since the criteria of “at least two ACR gradings of ‘A’ (Very
Good) and remaining three ACR gradings of ‘B +’ (Good)”
fixed on 28th April, 2009 was changed to “ACR gradings for
each of the five years to be minimum ‘A’ (Very Good)” on 15 th
January 2010, we are of the opinion that the implementation
of the said criteria should be in phased manner as under:-

(i) At least two ACR gradings of ‘A’ (Very Good) and remaining
three ACR gradings of ‘B+’ (Good) out of the ACR gradings
for the last 5 years under consideration (2004-2008) for the
year 2009;

(ii) At least three ACR gradings of ‘A’ (Very Good) and remaining
two ACR gradings of ‘B+’ (Good) out of the ACR gradings for
the last 5 years under consideration (2005-2009) for the year
2010;

(iii) At least four ACR gradings of ‘A’ (Very Good) and remaining
one ACR grading of ‘B+’ (Good) out of the ACR gradings for
the last 5 years under consideration (2006-2010) for the year
2011; and

(iv) ACR grading for each of the five years to be minimum ‘A’
(Very Good) for the last 5 years under consideration (2007-
2011) for the year 2012 and onwards.

8
We recommend that the cases for appointment to the post of
District Judge be considered/reviewed applying the aforesaid
criteria as proposed.”
5.3.1. The aforementioned recommendations of the Committee were

accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 27.01.2011.
5.4. In the manner aforesaid, the respondent High Court took the

decision to implement the revised criteria envisaged by the aforesaid

resolution dated 15.01.2010 in a phased manner; and the requirements

came to be provided that for appointment to the post of District and

Sessions Judge, a candidate should, in the five years preceding the base

year, carry the ACR gradings as follows:

(i) for the year 2009, at least two ‘A’ (very good) and the remaining
three ‘B+’ (good);

(ii) for the year 2010, at least three ‘A’ (very good) and the
remaining two ‘B+’ (good);

(iii) for the year 2011, at least four ‘A’ (very good) and the remaining
one ‘B+’ (good); and

(iv) for the year 2012 and onwards, a minimum of five ‘A’ (very
good).

5.5. From the material placed on record by the respondent No. 1 with an

application (IA No. 134092 of 2019), it appears further that the

Administrative and General Supervision Committee of the High Court, in its

meeting held on 13.09.2013, resolved, inter alia, that the post of Principal

Judge, Family Court being equivalent to that of District and Sessions Judge,

the same criteria be also adopted therefor. This resolution was duly given

9
effect to in the Full Court meeting by circulation dated 28.01.2014 as also in

the subsequent Full Court resolutions.

5.6. With reference to the grievance of the appellant against denial of

promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge or equivalent, we may

also take note of a few of the relevant subsequent Full Court resolutions,

that have been placed on record by the respondent No. 1 with the said

application, IA No. 134092 of 2019.

5.6.1. It is noticed that for the purpose of the Full Court meeting by

circulation dated 09.01.2015, the position obtainable in the wake of the

aforesaid three resolutions dated 28.04.2009, 15.01.2010 and 27.01.2011,

was detailed out in the note prepared by the registry of the High Court.

Thereafter, the Full Court proceeded to adopt the resolution for appointment

against the vacancies that had arisen to the posts of District and Sessions

Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court for various reasons, including

those of elevation of some of the incumbents to the High Court. Noticeably,

the cases of all the persons falling in the zone of consideration were

considered, including that of the appellant; and while making

recommendations for appointment, some of the incumbents, including the

appellant, were not found fit for such appointment on the basis of the

criteria laid down in the aforesaid resolutions dated 28.04.2009, 15.01.2010

and 27.01.2011. The relevant part of this resolution dated 09.01.2015 reads

as under: –

10
“(i) Mr. Yogesh Khanna, Ms. Ravinder Kaur and Mr. Talwant
Singh, already District Judges under next below rule be
recommended for appointment as District Judge on regular
basis w.e.f. 15.12.2014 against three vacancies of District
Judges which have arisen w.e.f. 15.12.2014 consequent
upon elevation of Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Teji, Hon’ble Mr.
Justice I.S. Mehta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. K. Gauba as
Additional Judges of this Court on 15.12.2014.

Against the vacancy fallen vacant consequent upon
elevation of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal as
Additional Judges of this Court, the names of officers in the
zone of consideration were considered and it was decided
that on the criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down by the
Full Court decision dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full
Court decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011 , the name of
Mr. T.R. Naval, DHJS be recommended for appointment to
the post of District Judge on regular basis with effect from the
date he takes over.

Against the consequential vacancies on account of District
Judges being on deputation, the names of officers in the
zone of consideration were considered and it was decided
that on the criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down by the
Full Court decision dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full
Court decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011, the names
of Mr. Rakesh Sidhartha, Mr. Amar Nath, Mr. Pradeep
Chadha and Mr. Brijesh Sethi, DHJS be recommended for
appointment to the post of District Judge under next below
rule with effect from the date they take over. Since Ms. Asha
Menon, DHJS is on deputation as Member Secretary,
NALSA, her name be also recommended to the Govt. of NCT
of Delhi for appointment as District Judge on proforma basis
with effect from the date her juniors take over.

Mr. S.C. Malik, Mr. R. P.S. Teji, Mr. S.C. Rajan, Mr. Mahavir
Singhal, Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Mr. Rajnish
Bhatnagar and Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma, DHJS were not
found fit for appointment to the post of District Judge on the
criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down by the Full Court
decision dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full Court
decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011.

The recommendation for appointment of Mr. Brijesh Sethi,
DHJS to the post of District Judge under next below rule be
made to the Administrator, NCT of Delhi on receipt of
notification of appointment of Ms. Kiran Nath, DHJS as

11
Principal Secretary (Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs), Govt.
of NCT of Delhi.

On receipt of notification of appointment as District
Judges, their postings be made as per Annexure’X’.

(ii) The name of Mr. Girish Kathpalia, already Principal
Judge, Family Courts under next below rule be
recommended for appointment as Principal Judge, Family
Courts on regular basis with effect from the date Shri T.R.
Naval relinquishes the charge of the post of Principal Judge,
Family Courts, Delhi.

Against the consequential vacancies of Principal Judge,
Family Courts, the names of officers in the zone of
consideration were considered and on the criteria of
‘selection by merit’ as laid down by the Full Court decision
dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full Court decisions dated
15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011, the names of Ms. Poonam A.
Bamba, Mr. A.S. Jayachandra, Mr. Deepak Jagotra, Mr. Braj
Raj Kedia and Mr. Yashwant Kumar, DHJS be recommended
for appointment to the post of Principal Judge, Family Courts,
Delhi for the districts mentioned against their names on
regular basis with effect from the date they take over:-

Sl.No.      Name of the Officer            District
            (Mr. Ms.)
1.          Poonam A. Bamba                South, Saket
2.          A.S. Jayachandra               North-
                                           East,
                                           Vishwas
                                           Nagar
3.          Deepak Jagotra                 South-
                                           East,
                                           Saket
4.          Braj Raj Kedia                 Shahdara
                                           ,
                                           Karkardoo
                                           ma
5.          Yashwant Kumar                 West,
                                           THC

Mr. S.C. Malik Mr. R.P.S. Teji, Mr. S.C. Rajan, Mr.
Mahavir Singhal, Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Mr.
Rajneesh Bhatnagar, Mr. Narender Kumar Sharma, Mr. J.P.S.
Malik, Mr. K.S. Mohi, Ms. Sujata Kohli, Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, Mr.

12
Chandra Gupta and Mr. Narottam Kaushal were not found fit
for appointment to the post of Principal Judge, Family Courts
on the criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down by the Full
Court decision dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full Court
decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011.

The recommendations for appointment of Mr. Yashwant
Kumar DHJS to the post of Principal Judge, Family Court,
West, THC under next below rule be made to the
Administrator, NCT of Delhi on receipt of notification of
appointment of Mr. Brijesh Sethi, DHJS as District Judge
under next below rule.”
(underlining supplied)

5.6.2. It further appears that in the subsequent resolutions dated

16.04.2015, 19.09.2015 and 28.11.2016, various recommendations were

made by the Full Court for appointment to the post of District and Sessions

Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court. In these resolutions, the cases of

all the persons falling in the zone of consideration (including the appellant)

were considered but, while making recommendations, some of the

incumbents, including the appellant, were not found fit for such appointment

on the basis of the criteria laid down in the aforesaid resolutions dated

28.04.2009, 15.01.2010 and 27.01.2011. For avoiding unnecessary

repetition of similar aspects, all such resolutions need not be reproduced

but, for ready reference, we may extract the relevant part of the last of such

resolution dated 28.11.2016 as under: –

“….Against the consequential vacancy on account of Mr.
Girish Kathpalia being on deputation, the names of officers in
the zone of consideration were considered and it was
decided that on the criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down
by the Full Court decision dated 28.4.009 and modified by
Full Court decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011, the
name of Mr. A.S.Jayachandra be recommended for

13
appointment to the post of District Judge under next below
rule with effect from the date he takes over.

Mr. R.P.S. Teji, Mr.Mahavir Singhal and Ms. Sujata Kohli,
DHJS were not found fit for appointment to the post of District
Judge on the criteria of ‘selection by merit’ as laid down by
the Full Court decision dated 28.4.2009 and modified by Full
Court decisions dated 15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011.”
(underlining supplied)

THE FACTS RELATING TO THE APPELLANT AND HER GRIEVANCE

6. Having taken note of the relevant rules and the relevant resolutions,

the basic facts relating to the appellant and the principal aspects of her

grievance could now be recounted, in brief, as follows:

6.1. The appellant, having successfully competed in the written

examination and interview, secured third position in her batch for direct

selection to the cadre of DHJS and was duly appointed on 27.11.2002.

Later on, her position in the batch became second with resignation of the

candidate at second position. Thereafter, by virtue of the notification dated

19.12.2005, the appellant was appointed as Additional District and Sessions

Judge (Permanent) w.e.f. 25.11.2004. It is not in dispute that the service

conditions of the appellant are governed by the said Rules of 1970.

6.2. It is also not in dispute that for the period between May 2011 to

January 2014, the appellant was assigned cases under the Hindu Marriage

Act and other relatable matrimonial matters, during which period, she

disposed of approximately 2589 cases, which included 478 amicable

settlements.

14
6.3. The ACR gradings of the appellant for the relevant years had been

that she was awarded ‘B+’ (good) in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013;

and she was awarded ‘A’ (very good) in the year 2014.

6.4. It has been the case of the appellant that she became aware of the

impugned resolutions only when the judicial officers appointed in the year

2002 were considered for promotion to the post of District and Sessions

Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court in the month of November 2014. The

appellant would submit that immediately after noticing the prejudicial

requirements of the impugned resolutions, she addressed a representation

dated 12.11.2014 to the Chief Justice and the companion judges of the High

Court of Delhi for reconsideration of the criteria laid down in the impugned

resolutions. It is the contention of the appellant, that no reply was offered on

her representation but, on 02.12.2014, she was granted Super Time Scale

by the High Court by way of notification No. 27/DHC/Gaz/ST/VI.D.10/2014.

6.5. On 13.01.2015, the appellant made another representation to the

Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi apprising about her pending

representation and prayed that the proposed appointments may be kept on

hold.

6.6. The grievance of the appellant had been that despite her

representations, several appointments were made to the post of Principal

Judge, Family Court from the candidates of her batch who were junior in

rank to herself as also from the candidates of later batches. Aggrieved that

her representations were not considered to review the criteria in question as

15
also by promotion of the incumbents junior to herself, appellant preferred

the writ petition before the High Court while seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) quashing the notifications No. F.6/15/2012-
JudL/FC/Supt1aw/54-57 dated 15.1.2015 and No.
F.6/2/2015JudL/Suptlaw/109-112 dated 22.1.2015.

b) quashing the full Court resolutions dated 28.4.2009,
15.1.2010 and 27.1.2011 adopted by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi, with respect to evolving the requirement of Grade A
(if any), adopted on the said dates or at any other time for
recommendation for appointment/ promotion to the post of
District Judge! Principal Judge, Family Court.

c) Quashing the Rule 27 of Delhi Hiher Judicial Service
Rules, 1970 and direct the framing of specific Rules for the
promotion/ appointment to the post of District and Sessions
Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner for
recommendation for the appointment/promotion to the Post of
Principal Judge Family Court/ District and Sessions Judge as
per her entitlement.

(iii) pass such other orders or directions as deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

7. Seeking the reliefs aforesaid, the appellant submitted before the

High Court, inter alia, that prior to the year 2009, several candidates having

only ‘B+’ or even ‘B’ grade were promoted as District and Sessions Judge

and, when the batch of the year 2002 was being considered for

appointment to the post of District Judge in the year 2014, she came to

know of the requirements envisaged by the impugned resolutions. The

appellant contended that failure in communication of the mandated

conditions had jeopardised her promotional prospects.

16
7.1. It was also contended that the impugned resolutions were violative

of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, for being opposed to the

reasonable expectations for selection and vertical promotion, in terms of the

service conditions. The appellant further submitted that application of the

same criteria to judges as applicable to those in the Indian Administrative

Service was against the very essence of the decision of this Court in All

India Judges Association v. Union of India: (1993) 4 SCC 288, where it

was held that there cannot be any parity between the judges and the

administrative officers.

7.2. The appellant further referred to the decision of this Court in Dev

Dutt v. Union of India: (2008) 8 SCC 725 and submitted that granting

better grading (‘A’) to a set of junior officers and giving lower grading (‘B+’)

to senior, tantamount to adverse ACR for the senior and hence, the High

Court establishment ought to have disclosed not merely the concerned

officer’s grading, but also those of her juniors, so that she could have taken

recourse of fair and effective redress, by pointing out her strengths, which

might well have been overlooked by the appraising authorities. The

appellant also argued that though the ACR grades were made known to the

judicial officers, yet the pointwise grades were not made known to them,

which was required to be provided so as to assist the concerned officer to

grow and also to appeal against, if the same were found to be arbitrary.

8. While opposing the submissions of the appellant, the respondent

High Court establishment submitted, inter alia, that after the impugned

17
resolutions dated 28.04.2009 and 15.01.2010, the establishment received

various representations which were considered in the meeting held on

06.07.2010 and, pursuant to the resolution adopted therein, a Committee

was constituted to deal with the issue concerning the criteria for

appointment to the post of District Judge. The respondent submitted that in

its report dated 08.10.2010, the Committee recommended for maintaining

the criteria of possessing “very good” grading in five years immediately

preceding the year of appointment but suggested that the same be

implemented in a phased manner; and while accepting such

recommendations, the resolution dated 27.01.2011 came to adopted by the

Full Court (as noticed hereinbefore). It was submitted that the High Court,

being the best judge to assess as to which judicial officer was suited to the

work, was entitled to fix the criteria for the appointment in question; and it

was denied that such criteria had adversely affected the progression of

Additional District Judges.

8.1. It was also contended by the respondent that the appellant had

failed to show any flaw or unreasonableness in the criteria as laid down;

that there was no requirement for publication of the promotional criteria, as

it did not require obtaining of any additional qualification or likewise; that

every employee was expected to work to the best of his ability and

professional competence; and that raising a complaint against the

promotional criteria was meaningless and unwarranted. The respondent

also pointed out that for awarding ACR gradings, three judges of the High

18
Court were assigned the task of supervising the functioning of the judicial

officers and verification of the information drawn up qua them; and the

respective grades were made known only to the individual concerned.

8.2. The respondent establishment also defended Rule 27 of the Rules

of 1970 with the submissions that guidelines and criteria need to be evolved

having regard to the changing times; and as all the matters and

contingencies cannot be prescribed in the rules, discretion of the competent

authority is reserved but without vesting any arbitrary power.

8.3. It was also pointed out on behalf of the respondent establishment

that the appellant was granted super time scale w.e.f. 01.07.2013; she

made the representation on 12.11.2014 for reconsideration of the criteria in

question; her representation was rejected by the Full Court on 29.04.2015;

and the decision was communicated to her on 13.05.2015.

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT: THE IMPUGNED ORDER

9. In its impugned judgment and order dated 21.08.2018, the High

Court referred to the decisions of this Court in Chandramouleshwar

Prasad v. Patna High Court: AIR 1970 SC 370 and State of Bihar v. Bal

Mukund Sah: 2000 (4) SCC 640, wherein Articles 233 and 235 of the

Constitution of India were referred and primacy of the views of the High

Court in the appointment of District Judges was highlighted. The High Court

also analysed the aforementioned Full Court resolutions and proceeded to

examine the grievance of the appellant with respect to her lack of

knowledge or not being aware of the criteria to be fulfilled.

19
9.1. The High Court did not find any merit in the argument of the

petitioner-appellant that she was aggrieved due to non-communication of

the revised criteria while observing that before 2008-2009, there were no

criteria fixed for the purpose, which meant that the High Court

establishment had the discretion in the matter of selection and appointment

of the District Judges, either in terms of seniority or merit. The High Court

observed that such “no norms” position was sought to be rectified by

structuring the discretion with emphasis on certain threshold gradings and

such administrative criteria cannot be termed as arbitrary. The observations

of the High Court, forming the core of its decision, could be usefully

reproduced as under: –

“22. The petitioner’s grievance with respect to her lack of
knowledge or not being aware of the criteria to be fulfilled by
incumbent DHJS officers, in the opinion of this court, is not
justified. Before 2008-09 there was no criteria, which meant
that the High Court more or less had the absolute discretion
to select and appoint anyone, on the basis of seniority, or
merit. This “no norm” period was sought to be rectified by
structuring the discretion, and insisting that the concerned
officers ought to score certain threshold gradings in their
ACRs to be eligible for consideration. Such administrative
criteria, per se cannot be characterized as arbitrary, given the
prevailing “no norm” or “no rule” period. Though not a matter
of record, it is a fact that around that time, the existing one
District court’s territorial jurisdiction for the whole of Delhi was
re-organized; nine District Courts were created, with resultant
distribution of jurisdiction. That has now been further re-
organized. The consequent need to fill nine posts was felt.
The committee, which reported to the Full Court on
14.12.2009, took into account the identity of pay scales of
District Judges and equivalent grade All India Service (IAS)
officers and felt that since the former had to cross a threshold
bar of five “Very good” ACR gradings for five years, preceding
the date of consideration (for higher positions), a similar
approach could be adopted. As was highlighted by
20
Chandramouleshwar Prasad “the High Court is the body
which is intimately familiar with the efficiency and quality of
officers who are fit to be promoted as District Judges. The
High Court alone knows their merits as also demerits.”
Likewise, Bal Mukund Shah (supra) emphasized the same
theme:

“..rules made by the Governor in consultation with the
High Court in case of recruitment at grass-root level
and the recommendation of the High Court for
appointments at the apex level of the District
Judiciary under Article 233 remain the sole repository
of power to effect such recruitments and
appointments. It is easy to visualise that if suitable
and competent candidates are not recruited at both
these levels, the out turn of the judicial product would
not be of that high level which is expected of judicial
officers so as to meet the expectations of suffering
humanity representing class of litigants who come for
redressal of their legal grievances at the hands of
competent, impartial and objective Judiciary.”

23. Having regard to these imperatives, the petitioner’s
grievance that no norm should have been evolved and
implemented without prior notice, is insubstantial. A judicial
officer – like any other public employee or official joins the
service, hoping to make a difference, in terms of dealing with
the workload, quality of output (i.e. the judgments delivered)
and also the cases assigned to her. In a sense, service in the
judicial department (though a public service) is a mission,
given the solemn nature of judging. If this is the assumption
on which every judge, at every level is appointed to the
judicial system, the argument that if one is made aware that a
higher threshold of performance is expected, she or he would
work better (or have worked better) cannot be countenanced.
All judges – District Judges being no exception – are
expected to perform at their optimum levels, given the
exploding dockets, which they have to handle. The primary
role of anyone, when appointed as a judge is to perform as a
judge, to the best of her ability and competence. An
incumbent cannot be heard to say that her judicial work was
not up to the mark, because she was involved in some other
duties or more importantly, she was not aware that best
performance would result in selection as District Judge.
Every functionary- including judges shoulder those extra
duties to varying degrees, at different points of time. Nor do
those duties define the role of any incumbent in a judicial

21
service or system. If seen from this perspective, the work
performed by every judicial officer is what is graded in the
ACR. Therefore, to say that had any incumbent known that
the highest or a better grading is essential she or he would
have performed better is no grievance. The performance of
every judge is expected to be her or his best, or what she or
he was capable of, for the relevant period. Therefore, the
nuancing of discretion (to appoint) from an absolute one, to
one based on performance and merit, of DHJS officers, is
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. One more reason to reject
the petitioner’s argument in this regard is that the review
which took place through the Full Court resolution of 27
January 2011, was due to representation of DHJS officers
that introduction of the five ACR norm was abrupt. Therefore,
there was a general awareness of this criteria, (put in place
through the earlier resolution of 15-01-2010) which led to
some disquiet and representation. The criteria which now
stands challenged was therefore evolved as a measure to
relax the rigors of their immediate application. It has been
applied in the case of many instances of appointment; some
of those appointees have since even retired; some were
appointed as judges of this court. Even from that position,
some appointees have retired. Therefore, it is too late in the
day to say that the criteria should be set aside on the narrow
ground that it was not made known. As members of a judicial
cadre, all officers were aware of its existence. This ground
therefore, is rejected.”
9.2. The grievance of the appellant about absence of any information of

the gradings of juniors was also found baseless. The High Court referred to

the law declared by this Court as regards the necessity of communication of

every ACR grading, particularly that in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) and

observed as under:-

“The petitioner’s grievance however, is that the better or
higher gradings given to her colleagues, particularly those
junior to her were not known and that she could not articulate
her objections to better her gradings, at the relevant time.

This court is of the opinion that the method of appraisal of
judicial officers is such that gradings given to each individual
are treated as confidential. In such a system, it would not be
permissible to publicize the gradings of all judicial officers, so

22
that each one has information or knowledge of not only what
she is graded, but also what others are graded. This
grievance is therefore held to be without substance.”

9.3. In the manner aforesaid, the High Court proceeded to reject the

contentions of the appellant. However, before concluding, the High Court

observed that though the existing system of grading of the judicial officers

by the committees comprising of three High Court judges was merited but

there being no uniform set of rules or guidelines for the appraisal

committees to follow, it was in the fitness of things that to inject greater

uniformity and objectivity as also some measure of transparency and

predictability, certain norms and performance indicators be kept in view by

the evaluation authorities. The High Court proceeded to broadly lay down

such norms and indicators in the penultimate paragraph of its order and,

ultimately, concluded on the writ petition in the following: –

“29. In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the
Full Court resolutions of 28.4.2009 (modified on 15.01. 2010)
and the later resolution 27.01.2011, inasmuch as they
prescribe that for appointment to the post of District Judge,
the concerned judicial officer should have been graded A in
the preceding five years, is not arbitrary; the challenge to
Rule 27 too has to fail. The petitioner‟s grievance that she
was arbitrarily denied knowledge of the ACR gradings of
other officers, is also without merit. This court hereby requires
that the directions in the preceding para of this judgment with
respect to formulation of criteria for uniform grading of judicial
officers, be suitably incorporated in the form of guidelines, for
future implementation; the Registrar General shall take
appropriate action to place the papers before the Hon‟ble
Chief Justice, in this regard. The writ petition is disposed of in
the above terms without order on costs.”
RIVAL CONTENTIONS

23

10. The substance of the principal submissions made on behalf of the

appellant in challenge to the order so passed by the High Court has been

as follows:

10.1. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that right to

be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and the exercise of this

fundamental right requires that an employee is given a free, fair and

reasonable opportunity to be considered for such promotion. The main

plank of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant has been that

only in the year 2009, the respondent establishment provided for the criteria

on which a candidate was to be considered for promotion as a District and

Sessions Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court but retrospective application

of such criteria on the individuals like the appellant negates their

fundamental right to be duly considered for promotion.

10.2. The learned senior counsel has emphatically argued that the said

change in criteria was never communicated to the appellant nor was

notified so as to make the candidate likely to be affected by such change

aware about the requirements. According to the learned counsel, the so-

called “general awareness” and “deemed knowledge” does not establish

that all concerned were aware of the newly incorporated criteria and the

lack of communication is in violation of principle of natural justice.

10.3. The learned senior counsel would submit that when the changes are

made retrospectively and the right to promotion is denied, the procedure

cannot be said to be just and fair. The learned counsel has argued that any

24
change in the method of promotion ought to be prospective in its application

and ought to be specifically communicated to the candidate concerned.

While relying on the decisions in State of U.P. v. Mahesh Narain : (2013) 4

SCC 169 and Nirmal Chandra Bhattachargee & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors.: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363, the learned counsel has contended that in

the similar fact situation, this Court has held that the change of service rules

cannot be made to the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to

such change. According to the learned counsel, creation of new criteria for

promotion amounts to a change in service rules and such an alteration

cannot be given retrospective effect if it operates to the prejudice of the

employee who was in service before such change and this cannot be done

even in exercise of the so-called residuary powers.

10.4. The learned senior counsel would further submit that even when

changes of reasonable nature can be made in the matter of promotion, the

changes themselves should be made only in a reasonable manner with due

notice to the people likely to be affected, which having not been done in the

present case, the impugned operation of changed criteria cannot be

countenanced. The learned counsel contended that when the petitioner

joined the service and even thereafter the existing criteria for promotion to

the post of District Judge as also for consideration to be elevated to the

High Court had consistently been of the candidate having ‘B+’ grade and

the appellant fulfilling such criteria, ought to have been promoted to the

cadre of District Judge.

25
10.5. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that in the case of

Dev Dutt (supra), this Court has specifically held that nomenclature is not

important but the effect of an entry in the ACR would determine if it is an

adverse one or not. The learned counsel would submit that in the present

case, though the appellant was given her ACR gradings but she was

unaware that after 2009, such gradings would be operating adverse against

her pursuant to the new criteria and the effect of want of communication of

change in service conditions and rules has operated detrimental to her

candidature for promotion.

10.6. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that even as on

date, no objective criteria exists for evaluating a judicial officer and marking

of the grading is only on the subjective satisfaction of the authority

concerned. The learned counsel would submit that while only the overall

ACR gradings are communicated but the point-wise grading is not

communicated, which hinders the ability of a judicial officer to appreciate

any weak point or to effectively appeal against any unfair or adverse

grading. With reference to the last part of the impugned order, learned

counsel has contended that admittedly, no uniform system existed for

evaluating a judicial officer and, in the given scenario, any grading based on

unknown criteria could only be treated as arbitrary and the promotion

criteria based thereon cannot be approved.

11. The counter-submissions on behalf of the contesting respondent

could also be briefly taken note of as follows:

26
11.1. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the

posts of District and Sessions Judge and the Principal Judge, Family Court

are selection posts to which, appointments are to be made on the basis of

merit-cum-seniority and therefore, the appellant cannot claim appointment

thereto as a matter of right. The learned counsel has referred to the facts

that prior to the year 2008, there was only one sanctioned post of District

Judge under the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 but later on, the

National Capital Territory of Delhi was bifurcated into 9 Civil Districts with

effect from 01.11.2008; and that pursuant to such bifurcation, the strength of

District and Sessions Judges was increased to 11. The learned counsel has

referred to the aforementioned resolutions by the Full Court with the

submissions that prior to the year 2009, there was no criteria laid down by

the High Court for selecting candidates for appointment to the post of

District Judge but, given the requirement of laying down standards for such

selection, the said resolutions were adopted and implemented while

keeping in view Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 and the norms prescribed by

the Government of India under OM dated 15.02.2008 for the posts having

the pay scale equivalent to that of a District Judge.

11.2. With reference to Article 233(1) of the Constitution of India, the

learned counsel would submit that the power to appoint District Judges lies

strictly with the High Court and it was in exercise of such powers that the

High Court laid down the criteria in question for selection of the most

meritorious among the eligible candidates. While reiterating the

27
submissions that appointment to the posts in question is purely on merit-

cum–security basis, the learned counsel has argued, with reference to

several of the decisions, including those in Central Council for Research

in Ayurveda & Siddha and Anr. v. Dr. K. Santhakumari: (2001) 5 SCC 60

and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited and

Ors. v. Seema Sharma and Ors.: (2009) 7 SCC 311, that in appointments

on the basis of merit-cum-seniority, the merit acquires primacy and seniority

becomes relevant only when all the aspects of merit qualifications are

equal. The learned counsel has contended that the appellant was also duly

considered for such appointment but only those candidates were appointed

who were more meritorious than her, like the respondent Nos. 3 to 10.

11.3. As regards the question of knowledge of the appellant regarding the

criteria in question, the learned counsel has argued that the criteria adopted

by the High Court had been the same as prescribed by the Government of

India in OM dated 18.02.2008 and, by virtue of Rule 27 of the Rules of

1970, the appellant shall be deemed to be having knowledge of the same;

and even her contemporaneous colleagues had conducted themselves in

accordance with the requirements of such criteria. The learned counsel has

also referred to the representations made by the Associations of the officers

and has contended that it cannot be suggested by the appellant that the

concerned judicial officers were not having knowledge of adoption of the

criteria mentioned in the impugned resolutions.

28
11.4. The learned counsel has distinguished the decision of this Court in

the case of Mahesh Narain (supra) with the submissions that therein, this

Court has held that an employee cannot be precluded from enjoying the

benefit of a provision for promotion which was amended after he became

eligible for being promoted. The learned counsel would submit that in the

present case, the High Court did not change the eligibility criteria for

appointment of District Judge and by the impugned resolutions, merely

evolved a selection criteria for evaluation of eligible candidates; and in any

case, the appellant entered the zone of consideration only in the year 2014-

15 whereas, the said criteria in question had been implemented for

appointments made from the year 2012 onwards. Similarly, the learned

counsel has distinguished the decision in Nirmal Chandra (supra) with the

submissions that the fact situation therein was entirely different where due

to restructuring, Class D employees were placed in Class C without change

of their status and they were sought to be denied the benefit of promotion to

a post in Class C for which, this Court held that such promotion could not

be denied to the persons who became eligible for promotion prior to the

restructuring; and the impact of restructuring could not prejudice the

employees.

11.5. As regards the decision in Dev Dutt (supra), the learned counsel

has contended that the reliance thereupon was entirely misplaced because

the appellant was admittedly informed of all her ACRs; and she rather

accepted most of her ACRs for the period 2010 to 2014 without any protest

29
and did not pursue any case for upgradation of the same; and it is evident

that she was never dissatisfied with her grading in the relevant ACRs as

‘B+’.

11.6. Put in a nutshell, the submissions on behalf of the contesting

respondent have been that the appellant is not entitled to any relief because

all the candidates recommended for promotion had better ACR gradings

than the appellant.

12. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions

and have perused the material placed on record with reference to the law

applicable.

13. In view of the submissions made, two points mainly arise for

determination in this case: (1) As to whether the appellant has been denied

fair and reasonable consideration of her case for promotion to the posts of

District and Sessions Judge/ Principal Judge, Family Court by operation of

the criteria laid down in the impugned resolutions; and (2) As to whether the

appellant suffered any prejudice in the matter of ACR gradings?

RE: POINT NUMBER (1)

14. As noticed, the principal grievance of the appellant is that she has

been denied fair and reasonable consideration of her case for promotion. It

has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent High

Court evolved new criteria for promotion to the posts of District and

Sessions Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court by way of the impugned

resolutions but the same was not notified and she was not made aware of

30
the new criteria that required ‘A’ gradings in the ACRs of five years

preceding the base year of consideration. It has also been contended on

behalf of the appellant that the respondent High Court had acted illegally

and unfairly in putting the new criteria in operation with retrospective effect

that has caused her serious prejudice. An ancillary aspect has also been

put into contention that the High Court had not been right in fixing the

criteria for promotion of the judicial officers on the basis of the norms

applicable to the executive officers while disregarding the law that the

members of other services cannot be placed at par with the members of the

judiciary.

15. In order to examine as to whether the appellant has been able to

make out a valid case of legal grievance, a brief reference to the basic legal

provisions and principles having application to the case at hand shall be

apposite.

15.1. It does not require any elaborate discussion to say that the right to

be considered for promotion is a fundamental right of equality of opportunity

in the matter of employment. The wide variety of case-law on the subject

need not be recounted but, for ready reference, it appears appropriate to

refer to the decision in Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and

Ors.: (1999) 7 SCC 209 wherein a Constitution Bench of this Court

reaffirmed the basics of such fundamental right and also pointed out the

silhouettes of the criteria relating to promotional avenues in the following: –

“22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They
deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands

31
that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before
the law or the equal protection of the laws”. Article 16(1)
issues a positive command that “there shall be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office under the State”. It
has been held repeatedly by this Court that Sub-clause (1) of
Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that -it takes its roots
from Article 14. The said Sub-clause particularizes the
generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense
“equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and
appointment to any office under the State. The word
’employment’ being wider, there is no dispute that it takes
within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the
stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to
every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who
comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right
to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here
means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person
satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered
for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his
fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is
his personal right.

23. Where promotional avenues are available, seniority
becomes closely interlinked with promotion provided such a
promotion is made after complying with the principle of equal
opportunity stated in Article 16(1). For example, if the
promotion is by rule of seniority-cum-suitability’, the eligible
seniors at the basic level as per seniority fixed at that level
and who are within the zone of consideration must be first
considered for promotion and be promoted if found suitable.
In the promoted category they would have to count their
seniority from the date of such promotion because they get
promotion through a process of equal opportunity. Similarly, if
the promotion from the basic level is by selection or merit or
any rule involving consideration of merit, the senior who is
eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found
meritorious in comparison with others, he will have to be
promoted first. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in
order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and
more meritorious than the first person in the seniority list, he
should be promoted. In either case, the person who is first
promoted will normally count his seniority from the date of
such promotion. (There are minor modifications in various
services in the matter of counting of seniority of such
promotees but in all cases the senior most person at the

32
basic level is to be considered first and then the others in the
line of seniority). That is how right to be considered for
promotion and the ‘seniority’ attached to such promotion
become important facets of the fundamental right guaranteed
in Article 16(1).”
(underlining supplied)

15.2. The criteria in question, for promotion to the post of District and

Sessions Judge and equivalent, had been evolved and operated by the High

Court in the purported exercise of its powers under the Rules of 1970. The

fundamentals of law also remain settled that the power of appointment,

posting and promotion of District Judges vests with the Governor of the

State, but this power has to be exercised in consultation with the High Court

concerned; and this Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that in such

matters, the primacy is to be given to the views of High Court. Again, instead

multiplying the authorities, suffice would be to refer to the decision in the

case of Chandramouleshwar Prasad (supra) wherein a Constitution Bench

of this Court exposited the principles underlying Article 233 of the

Constitution of India7 and observed, inter alia, as under: –

“….No doubt the appointment of a person to be a District
Judge rests with the Governor but he cannot make the
appointment on his own initiative and must do so in
consultation with the High Court. The underlying idea of the
Article is that the Governor should make up his mind after
there has been a deliberation with the High Court. The High
Court is the body which is intimately familiar with the
7 Article 233 (1) reads as under:-

“233. Appointment of district judges.—(1) Appointments of persons to be,
and the posting and promotion of, district judges in any State shall be made by
the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to such State.”

33
efficiency and quality of officers who are fit to be promoted as
District Judges. The High Court alone knows their merits as
also demerits. This does not mean that the Governor must
accept whatever advice is given by the High Court but the
Article does require that the Governor should obtain from the
High Court its views on the merits or demerits of persons
among whom the choice of promotion is to be limited. If the
High Court recommends A while the Governor is of opinion
that B’s claim is superior to A’s it is incumbent on the
Governor to consult the High Court with regard to its proposal
to appoint B and not A. If the Governor is to appoint B without
getting the views of the High Court about B’s claim vis-a-vis
A’s Lo promotion, B’s appointment cannot be said to be in
compliance with Article 233 of the Constitution. …..

…. So far as promotion of officers to the cadre of District
Judges is concerned the High Court is best fitted to adjudge
the claims and merits of persons to be considered for
promotion. The Governor cannot discharge his function under
Article 233 if he makes an appointment of a person without
ascertaining the High Court’s views in regard
thereto…………”

15.3. While keeping the aforesaid principles in view, we may now examine

the scheme of the Rules of 1970. As noticed, two channels of recruitment to

the posts in the cadre of District Judge have been provided: one by

promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) and another by

direct recruitment from the eligible persons. As regards promotion, the

bifurcation is provided in the manner that 65% are to be recruited by way of

promotion on the basis of merit–cum–seniority and 10% by promotion

strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination (vide

Rule 7 and 7A). Even in the matters relating to pay scales, it is noticed that

granting of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale is on the assessment of

merit–cum–seniority (vide Rule 18). The matter in issue in the present

34
appeal relates to promotion to the posts of District and Sessions Judge or

Principal Judge, Family Court within the cadre of DHJS. Apparently, no

separate provision is found in the Rules of 1970 as regards such upward

progression within the cadre and obviously, for such a matter, the residuary

provision as contained in Rule 27 comes into operation by virtue of which,

the directions or orders for the time being in force and applicable to the

officers of comparable status in IAS would apply.

15.3.1 At this juncture, we may observe that the appellant had attempted to

question the said Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 as being ultra vires,

particularly with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of All

India Judges Association (supra). In our view, the High Court has rightly

rejected such a challenge to Rule 27 because this residuary clause in the

Rules of 1970 does not appear offending the law declared by this Court in

any manner. This residuary clause is not of equating the judicial officers with

the executive officers but only provides that in regard to the matters for

which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the Rules of

1970, the relevant rules, directions or orders as applicable to IAS shall

regulate the conditions of service of the officers of DHJS. A perusal of the

other provisions in the Rules of 1970 makes it clear that reference to the

service conditions of the members of IAS is not an anathema to these rules

and, on the contrary, wherever necessary, the applicable rules, orders or

directions concerning the members of IAS do govern the service conditions

of the judicial officers too. For example, in the matter of pay fixation of a

35
promoted officer, it is provided in Rule 20 that such pay shall be fixed in the

referred time scale in accordance with the financial rules, regulations et

cetera, as applicable from time to time to the members of IAS; and as per

Rule 26, the direct recruits are required to produce before appointment, a

certificate of physical fitness in accordance with the standards prescribed for

IAS. Such provisions, essentially meant for proper regulation of the service,

by themselves, do not put the members of DHJS at par with the members of

IAS for all purposes. Moreover, as noticed, what the High Court

establishment has provided by way of the impugned resolutions are the

norms for promotion while taking cue from the norms applicable to the

members of IAS in the equivalent pay scale. Providing for such norms does

not in any manner stand at conflict with the principles laid down in the case

of All India Judges Association (supra). The challenge to the said Rule 27

has rightly been rejected by the High Court.

15.4. It would now be appropriate to take note of the principles governing

the exercise of promotion, particularly the norms and criteria for promotion.

15.4.1. As noticed, in the case of Ajit Singh (supra), even while holding that

the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, the

Constitution Bench pointed out the subtle distinction in the operation of the

norms of seniority on one hand and any rule requiring consideration of merit

on the other while observing, inter alia, that ‘if the promotion from the basic

level is by selection or merit or any rule involving consideration of merit, the

senior who is eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found

36
meritorious in comparison with others, he will have to be promoted first. If

he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be

considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than the first person in

the seniority list, he should be promoted.’

15.4.2. In Central Council for Research (supra), this Court further

elaborated on the relevant principles, particularly with reference to the role

of merit in relation to the higher posts while observing, inter alia, as under:-

“6. The principle of merit-cum-seniority is an approved
method of selection and this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v.
State of Rajasthan
: AIR 1967 SC 1910 held that promotion to
“selection grade posts” is not automatic on the basis of
ranking in the gradation list and the promotion is primarily
based on merit and not on seniority alone. At p. 1914 of the
judgment, it is stated as under: (AIR para 6)
“The circumstance that these posts are classed as
‘selection grade posts’ itself suggests that promotion to
these posts is not automatic being made only on the
basis of ranking in the gradation list but the question of
merit enters in promotion to selection posts. In our
opinion, the respondents are right in their contention that
the ranking or position in the gradation list does not
confer any right on the petitioner to be promoted to
selection post and that it is a well-established rule that
promotion to selection grades or selection posts is to be
based primarily on merit and not on seniority alone. The
principle is that when the claims of officers to selection
posts is under consideration, seniority should not be
regarded except where the merit of the officers is judged
to be equal and no other criterion is, therefore,
available.”

7. The Court further held that such mode of selection is not
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

8. In State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das: AIR 1966 SC
1547 the Constitution Bench of this Court held that the
promotion to a selection post is not a matter of right which
can be claimed merely by seniority.

9. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor: (1973)2 SCC 8363
(SCC at p. 856, para 37) it was held as under:

37

“[F]or inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects
should be the governing consideration and that seniority
should play only a secondary role. It is only when merit and
suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a
determining factor, or, if it is not fairly possible to make an
assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible
candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt
the scale.”

10. In B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu: (1998) 6 SCC 720
this Court held that the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” lays
greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a
less significant role. Seniority is to be given weight only when
merit and ability are approximately equal.”

15.4.3. In Haryana State Electronics (supra), this Court again pointed out

the root distinction in the principles of merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-

merit in the following:-

“7. The Court is of the opinion that the principle of merit-cum-
seniority and that of seniority-cum-merit are two totally
different principles.

8. The principle of merit-cum-seniority puts greater emphasis
on merit and ability and where promotion is governed by this
principle seniority plays a less significant role. However,
seniority is to be given weightage when merit and ability more
or less are equal among the candidates who are to be
promoted.

9. On the other hand, insofar as the principle of seniority-
cum-merit is concerned it gives greater importance to
seniority and promotion to a senior person cannot be denied
unless the person concerned is found totally unfit on merit to
discharge the duties of the higher post. The totality of the
service of the employee has to be considered for promotion
on the basis of seniority-cum-merit….”

16. Keeping the principles aforesaid in view, when we revert to the

scheme of the Rules of 1970, the striking feature is that even at the entry

level, the promotions are to be made either on merit-cum-seniority basis8 or

8 As per clause (a) of Rule 7(1) and Rule 7A of the Rules of 1970

38
on merit basis9. Further, grant of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale is

also on assessment of merit–cum–seniority10. In the given scheme of the

Rules of 1970, it is difficult to countenance any suggestion that in DHJS,

merit could be forsaken at any level or only seniority be given primacy in the

matter relating to upward progression to the higher posts of District and

Sessions Judge or Principal Judge, Family Court. Rather, looking to the

nature of posts, in every higher progression, merit would play a major role

and would, perforce, acquire primacy.

17. We may also recapitulate a few basic features relating to the

impugned resolutions. As per the facts available on record, prior to the year

2008, there was only one sanctioned post of District Judge under the Rules

of 1970. Later on, the National Capital Territory of Delhi came to be

bifurcated into 9 Civil Districts and the bifurcation came into effect from

01.11.2008 by virtue of the notification dated 22.10.2008; and in view of

such bifurcation, the strength of District and Sessions Judges was

increased to 11. This reorganisation and increase of strength of the cadre

of DHJS, obviously, led to the requirement of providing the norms and

criteria for promotion to the posts of District and Sessions Judges and

equivalent because no such norms and criteria were in existence. In

keeping with such requirements, the High Court, in its Full Court meeting

dated 28.04.2009, adopted a resolution to the effect that, for the purpose of

being selected/promoted as District and Sessions Judge, a candidate of

9 As per clause (b) of Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1970
10 As per Rule 18 of the Rules of 1970

39
DHJS ought to fulfil the criteria of possessing at least two ‘A’ (very good)

and three ‘B+’ (good) ACR gradings for the preceding five years from the

date of consideration for such appointment. Thereafter, in its Full Court

meeting dated 15.01.2010, the High Court proceeded to modify the

aforesaid criteria to the effect that for being promoted as District and

Sessions Judge, a candidate of DHJS ought to possess the minimum ‘A’

(very good) grading in ACRs of each of the five years under consideration.

It had been the case of the respondent High Court that such criteria were

adopted as being equivalent to the revised promotion criteria in the Indian

Administrative Services by virtue of the residuary provision contained in

Rule 27 ibid. As against the aforesaid resolution dated 15.01.2010, the

High Court received certain representations, including those from the

Associations of the Officers and, upon consideration of these

representations, a committee comprising of four Hon’ble Judges, in its

report dated 08.10.2010, recommended for implementation of the revised

criteria in a phased manner; and such recommendations of the committee

were accepted by the Full Court of the High Court on 27.01.2011. In this

manner aforesaid, the respondent High Court took the decision to

implement the revised criteria envisaged by the resolution dated

15.01.2010 in a phased manner; and the requirements came to be

provided that for appointment to the post of District and Sessions Judge, a

candidate should, in the five years preceding the base year, carry the ACR

gradings as follows:

40

(i) for the year 2009, at least two ‘A’ (very good) and the remaining
three ‘B+’ (good);

(ii) for the year 2010, at least three ‘A’ (very good) and the
remaining two ‘B+’ (good);

(iii) for the year 2011, at least four ‘A’ (very good) and the remaining
one ‘B+’ (good); and

(iv) for the year 2012 and onwards, a minimum of five ‘A’ (very
good).

Further, the Administrative and General Supervision Committee of

the High Court, in its meeting dated 13.09.2013, resolved, inter alia, that the

post of Principal Judge, Family Court being equivalent to that of District and

Sessions Judge, the same criteria be also adopted for appointment of

Principal Judge, Family Court.

17.1. In an overall comprehension of the matter, we have no hesitation in

endorsing the views of the High Court in the impugned order that the no-

norms position for upward progression in DHJS, as existing prior to the year

2009, could not have been continued with reorganisation of the District

Courts and certain norms, commensurate with the posts in question, were

required to be provided; and were accordingly provided with reference to

the prescriptions for the officers of IAS in the equivalent pay scales. It has

been asserted on behalf of the contesting respondent, and remains

indisputable, that for the officers of such equivalent pay scales, the

requirement had been of five “very good” ACR gradings (i.e., ‘A’ grading) for

five years preceding the date of consideration for higher positions. The High

41
Court establishment had further been reasonable and balanced in its

approach when such threshold requirement of five “very good” ACR

gradings was not foisted on the officers immediately and, in keeping with

the position obtainable in the past as also keeping in view the merit

requirements, took a considered decision after examining the

representations that such criteria be implemented gradually and started with

the norms of two “very good” with three “good” ACR gradings for the year

2009 and systematically enhanced the norms to three “very good” with two

“good” ACR gradings for the year 2010; four “very good” with one “good”

ACR gradings for the year 2011; and eventually provided for five “very

good” ACR gradings for the year 2012 and onwards.

17.2. In the given fact situation and the methodology of gradual

implementation adopted by the High Court, the suggestion on the part of

the appellant that there had been any so-called retrospective operation of

revised criteria remains totally bereft of substance and could only be

rejected.

18. Turning now to the main plank of the submissions on behalf of the

appellant that she was not made aware of such so-called revised criteria, in

our view, such submissions carry several shortcomings of their own. As

noticed, the appellant joined DHJS in the year 2002 and eventually stood

second in rank in her batch. She was confirmed with effect from 25.11.2004.

She was, and would always be presumed to be, aware of all the

requirements of the Rules of 1970. Moreover, the appellant, a member of

42
DHJS, cannot suggest that she remained oblivious of the developments

about creation of 9 Civil Districts in the year 2008 and increase in the

strength of District and Sessions Judges to 11. The appellant was also

aware of the fact that no specific provision was available in the Rules of

1970 as regards upward progression in DHJS, particularly to the posts of

District and Sessions Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court and hence,

by virtue of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970, she would be deemed to be

having constructive knowledge that the criteria to be adopted for such

upward progression would be that as applicable for the equivalent posts in

IAS. The Office Memorandum dated 18.02.2008 issued by the Government

of India in its Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel and Training) has been placed on record by the

contesting respondent and it is not the case of the appellant that she was

not aware of this Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India 11.

When it had consistently been provided that for promotion to the scale of

Rs. 18,400 – 22,400 and above, the prescribed benchmark of “very good”

ought to be met in all ACRs of five years under consideration; and when the

higher posts of District and Sessions Judge and Principal Judge, Family

Court do carry much higher scales of pay (vide Rule 18 ibid.), neither the

11 In the said OM, it had, inter alia, been provided that, –
“…in order to ensure greater selectivity at higher level of administration, the
DPC may ensure that for the promotion to the scale of Rs.18,400–22,400 and
above, the prescribed benchmark of ‘Very Good’ is invariably met in all ACR’s of
five years under consideration…”

43
High Court could be faulted in applying the same benchmark for such higher

posts in DHJS nor the appellant could feign ignorance about the same.

18.1. Apart from the above, it is noteworthy that in the Rules of 1970, even

the entry level promotion to the post in DHJS is on the basis of merit-cum-

seniority or merit. Viewed in the light of such requirements, it goes without

saying that any upward progression in DHJS could only be on the higher

requirements of merit and in any case, such requirements cannot be lesser

than the requirements at entry level. In this view of the matter too, the

appellant was conscious of the fact that for upward movement in DHJS,

merit would acquire primacy; and that seniority alone was not going to be

decisive for promotion to the higher posts of District and Sessions Judge

and the Principal Judge, Family Court. Although there is no requirement in

law that criteria for promotion based on ACR alone be also notified but, in

any case, in the scheme of the rules and the requirements of the posts in

question, the appellant cannot contend that she was not aware of the

position that comparative merit of the incumbents shall be a crucial factor for

any upward progression in the cadre.

18.2. It is also noteworthy that when from the year 2009, such exercise

was undertaken by the High Court establishment to lay down proper norms

and criteria for upward progression in DHJS, both the Associations of the

judicial officers namely, Delhi Higher Judicial Service Officers Association as

also Delhi Judicial Service Officers Association, made representations after

the Full Court meeting dated 15.01.2010 and gradual implementation of the

44
criteria was provided after due consideration of the said representations. It

is not the case of the appellant that she is not a member of the Association

of DHJS officers.

18.3. Viewed from any angle, it is but apparent that the appellant was

aware of, and shall always be deemed to be conscious of, the requirement

that any promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge or Principal

Judge, Family Court would only be on the basis of such norms where merit

would be a crucial factor and seniority alone would not suffice. It follows as a

necessary corollary that the appellant was also conscious of the position

that while making any such promotion, the assessment would be based on

the competitive merit of the candidates in the zone of consideration; and if

any candidate in such zone of consideration was possessed of better merit

than herself, he would be preferred for promotion.

19. Coming now to the operation of the criteria in question, we are

clearly of the view that providing for the norms for assessment of the

comparative merits of the candidates in the zone of consideration, was

squarely within the domain of the High Court; and infringement of the right

of consideration could only be suggested if different yardsticks or different

norms were provided and applied qua the similarly circumstanced persons.

However, this is not the case of the appellant nor it could be so because the

High Court has apparently taken up all the persons in the zone of

consideration at the relevant time and has accorded promotion on the basis

of comparative merit of the candidates. The appellant, when could not stand

45
in such competitive merit position, cannot raise a complaint about

infringement of any of her legal rights. It is not the case of the appellant that

anybody junior to her and standing equal in merit or anybody not fulfilling

the criteria laid down by the High Court has been promoted.

19.1. Though, in all fairness, the appellant has not attempted to question

the reasonableness of the criteria as provided by the High Court but, having

regard to the issues raised, we feel inclined to observe that looking to the

duties and responsibilities attached with the higher posts of District and

Sessions Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court, the High Court cannot

be faulted in providing for a reasonable method of assessment of the

requisite merit in the manner that a candidate in the zone of consideration

ought to be possessing minimum five “very good” ACRs in the preceding

five years from the base year. As already noticed, in fact, the criteria so

adopted had been the identical one as provided for the members of IAS in

the equivalent pay scales.

20. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant about

non-communication of the criteria for promotion turn out to be totally

meritless and the grievance as suggested on behalf of the appellant cannot

be considered to be a legal grievance.

21. From the material placed on record, it is also apparent that the case

of the appellant was duly considered for such promotion along with the other

incumbents but herself and a few others were not promoted for not fulfilling

the criteria as provided in the impugned resolutions. The fact that the case

46
of the appellant was also duly considered is amply borne out from the

minutes of the Full Court meetings, including those of the meeting dated

09.01.2015 , 16.04.2015, 19.09.2015 and 28.11.2016 (the relevant parts of

two such resolutions dated 09.01.2015 and 28.11.2016 have been extracted

in paragraphs 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 hereinabove). Therefore, the appellant cannot

raise a grievance that the respondent establishment has not accorded due

consideration to her case for promotion. As noticed, case of the appellant

was duly considered but she could not be promoted for not possessing the

requisite gradings in her ACRs of the relevant period.

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case,

the decisions in the cases of Mahesh Narain and Nirmal Chandra

Bhattacharjeee (supra) are of no avail to the appellant because the fact

situation of the said cases were entirely different and this Court held that an

employee cannot be denied the benefit of a provision for promotion which

was amended after he became eligible for being promoted. In the present

case, the High Court did not change the eligibility criteria for appointment to

the post of District and Session Judge or Principal Judge, Family Court but

merely evolved a selection criteria for evaluation of eligible candidates.

There had not been any denial of a pre-existing right of the appellant, who

entered the zone of consideration only in the year 2014-15 whereas, the

criteria in question was implemented for the appointments made from the

year 2012.

47

23. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the

view that the appellant has not been denied fair and reasonable

consideration of her case for promotion to the posts of District and Sessions

Judge/ Principal Judge, Family Court by operation of the criteria laid down in

the impugned resolutions. Point number (1) is, accordingly, answered

against the appellant.

RE: POINT NUMBER (2)

24. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that though the

questioned criteria came to be provided by way of the impugned resolutions

and the same were sought to be implemented in a phased manner, but

there existed no objective basis for evaluating a candidate before assigning

any particular grading in ACR; and this fact is highlighted in the impugned

order itself where the Court has recognised the fact that there was no

uniform set of rules and guidelines for the appraisal committees to follow

and proceeded to lay down certain norms and guidelines in that regard.

Therefore, and while seeking strength from such observations in the

impugned order, it has been contended that deep lacuna in the system left

a wide vacuum in implementation of the new benchmark provided by the

impugned resolutions without any means of representation for the eligible

candidates like the appellant, who were otherwise suitable and eligible for

being considered for promotion. The decision of this Court in the case of

Dev Dutt (supra) has also been referred on behalf of the appellant. As

noticed, it had also been the submission on behalf of the appellant that she

48
was prejudiced for not being provided with the point-wise gradation and

also for having not been provided with the gradings of the other officers who

were junior to herself and who were given the promotion. In our view, the

submissions remain totally meritless and it cannot be said that the

contesting respondent has caused any prejudice to the appellant in the

matter of ACR gradings.

25. The fundamental requirement in law for communication of every

entry in ACR to the employee concerned, as settled in the case of Dev Dutt

(supra) and reaffirmed in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India:

(2013) 9 SCC 566, is neither of any doubt nor of any dispute. The law

declared in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), as referred on behalf of the

appellant, could be usefully noticed as under: –

“9. In the present case the benchmark (i.e. the essential
requirement) laid down by the authorities for promotion to the
post of Superintending Engineer was that the candidate
should have “very good” entry for the last five years. Thus in
this situation the “good” entry in fact is an adverse entry
because it eliminates the candidate from being considered for
promotion. Thus, nomenclature is not relevant, it is the effect
which the entry is having which determines whether it is an
adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the entry which
is important, not the phraseology. The grant of a “good” entry
is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it in fact makes him
ineligible for promotion or has an adverse effect on his
chances.

*** *** ***

17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR of a public servant
must be communicated to him within a reasonable period,
whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry.
This is because non-communication of such an entry may
adversely affect the employee in two ways: (1) had the entry
been communicated to him he would know about the
assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors, which

49
would enable him to improve his work in future; (2) he would
have an opportunity of making a representation against the
entry if he feels it is unjustified, and pray for its upgradation.
Hence, non-communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has
been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: (1978) 1 SCC 248 that
arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

18. Thus, it is not only when there is a benchmark but in all
cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair, average, good or
very good) must be communicated to a public servant,
otherwise there is violation of the principle of fairness, which
is the soul of natural justice. Even an outstanding entry
should be communicated since that would boost the morale
of the employee and make him work harder.

*** *** ***

41. In our opinion, non-communication of entries in the
annual confidential report of a public servant, whether he is in
civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the
military), certainly has civil consequences because it may
affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as
already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication
would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.”

25.1. In our view, reference to the aforesaid principles remains totally

misplaced in the fact situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that

the appellant was, in fact, informed of every grading made in her ACR. She

was awarded ‘B+’ (good) in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; and ‘A’

(very good) in the year 2014. From the material placed on record, it appears

that the appellant never challenged her gradings for any year except that for

the year 2011 when she requested for upgradation of her ACR grading from

‘B’ to ‘B+’ or ‘A’; and the High Court, acceding to her request, upgraded her

ACR to ‘B+’. As noticed, the impugned resolution dated 27.01.2011 came to

be adopted after due consideration of the representations made to the High

Court and in conformity with the criteria provided by the Government of

50
India for the posts equivalent in scale to that of District Judges. However,

the criteria of having ‘A’ (very good) grading in the preceding five years was

implemented in a phased manner, as already noticed hereinbefore. The

appellant, not being oblivious of the position that for any upward

progression in DHJS, comparative merit would be a key factor, chose to

remain contented with her grading at ‘B+’ in the relevant years and did not

question the same at the appropriate time and in appropriate manner. That

being the position, the appellant cannot be acceded the right to contend

now and at this stage that the ACR gradings have operated adverse to her.

The requirements of the decision in Dev Dutt (supra) were duly met with

communication of ACR gradings to the appellant.

26. Having regard to the circumstances of this case, we are impelled to

observe that while raising grievance with regard to the impact and effect of

ACR gradings, the appellant appears to have missed out the fundamental

factor that for the promotions in question, an individual’s minimum merit, by

itself, was not going to be decisive; but the relevant factor was going to be

comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration. That being

the position, when the persons in zone of consideration possessing ‘A’ (very

good) grading have been promoted in preference to her, the appellant

cannot raise a grievance about her gradings after such promotions.

27. The other contention as on behalf of the appellant that only the

overall ACR grading was communicated but not the point-wise grading or

criteria for grading, again, does not advance the cause of the appellant in

51
any manner. As noticed, the appellant did not challenge her ‘B+’ gradings in

the years 2010, 2012 and 2013. She was awarded ‘B’ grading in the year

2011 and upon her representation, the same was upgraded to ‘B+’. When

the appellant had not otherwise challenged her ‘B+’ gradings for the years

under consideration, she would not be entitled to raise any question on the

process or criteria for such award of gradings. Even otherwise, the

appellant has failed to show any legal requirement on the respondent

establishment to supply to her anything other than the overall grading.

Another feeble suggestion on behalf of the appellant, as noticed in the

impugned order by the High Court, about want of knowledge of gradings of

other officers has rightly not been pressed before us. The grading of an

individual officer remains a matter between the officer and the

establishment and any other officer cannot claim to be informed about the

grading of any other officer as a matter of right.

28. On behalf of the appellant, however, a substantial emphasis has

been put on the observation made in the impugned order on the

requirement of uniform norms for awarding of the grades in ACR; and it has

been contended that no objective criteria existed for evaluating an officer.

These submissions are also sans merit and do not in any manner advance

the cause of the appellant in the present case. This is for the simple reason

that the system and method for awarding of the grades in ACR at the

relevant time was equally applicable to all the judicial officers; and the

gradings, not only of the appellant but of all other officers too, were made by

52
way of the same methodology. Therein too, as noticed, the judicial officers’

work and performance was supervised and graded by the committees

comprising of three Hon’ble Judges and ultimately, the gradings were

finalised by the Full Court. In the impugned order also, the High Court found

such system to be a merited one but indicated the want of uniform set of

rules or guidelines for all the appraisal committees to follow; and thereafter

proceeded to lay down certain norms to be kept in view by the evaluation

authorities. The observations by the High Court, essentially meant for

improvement of the system with uniform set of guidelines, do not nullify the

effect of the ACRs already marked by the existing system. The guidelines

indicated by the High Court in the order impugned could only be construed

as being meant for future implementation. Nothing turns upon such

observations in relation to the case of the appellant.

29. For what has been discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the

view that the appellant has not been able to establish that she had suffered

any prejudice in the matter of ACR gradings. Point number (2) is also,

accordingly, answered against the appellant.

30. The discussion and findings aforesaid are sufficient to dispose of

this appeal but before concluding, we deem it necessary to point out that at

the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the appellant, who was present

in the Court to assist the arguing counsel, made the submissions before us,

with permission, that she had been a hard working officer and had never

received any adverse comment in her career but denial of promotion has

53
caused her serious prejudice. In regard to such lamentation, we deem it

appropriate to observe that while the appellant, standing second in rank in

her batch and having never earned any adverse comment, cannot be

faulted in making such expressions but at the same time, it is expected of

her to appreciate that when any particular progression depends on

comparative merit, and only the persons standing higher in merit have been

accorded such progression, her grievance cannot partake the character of a

legal grievance that could lead to any relief in law. We may put it differently

also to say that not being found eligible for promotion with reference to the

criteria as provided is not, by itself, any adverse pronouncement against the

diligence and commitment of the appellant. Nothing further could be or

need be said in this matter.

CONCLUSION

31. In the result, this appeal fails and is therefore dismissed with no

order as to costs and with the observations foregoing.

………………..………….J.

(A.M.KHANWILKAR)

…………..………….…….J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI)

New Delhi,
Dated: 24th April, 2020.

54



Source link