UTTAM KUMAR SHAW VERSUS PARTHA SARATHI SEN & ORS.

UTTAM KUMAR SHAW VERSUS PARTHA SARATHI SEN & ORS.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11698 OF 2018

UTTAM KUMAR SHAW …APPELLANT

VERSUS

PARTHA SARATHI SEN & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jayanth Nath, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Neither the

counsel for the High Court nor that of the contesting respondents would

want to make their submissions. While the counsel for the High Court

submitted that any decision of this Court would be duly implemented, it is

the say of the counsel for the contesting respondents that they have no desire

to pursue the matter further. Counsel for the State have stated that

appropriate orders may be passed based on the position it has taken.

2

2. The appellant joined the Judicial Service in 1989 as a Civil Judge, Junior

Division. With the approval of the Full Court, he was deemed suitable for

empanelment in the rank of West Bengal Higher Judicial Services.

Accordingly, a communication was sent by the High Court to the Principal

Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and by the proceeding dated

24.12.2003. The relevant part of the aforesaid is appositely reproduced

herein:

“I am directed to say that the following officers have been found

suitable for empanelment in the rank of West Bengal Higher

Judicial Service in this meeting held on 13.12.2003 and approved

by the full court by circulation dated 23.12.2002:-

Sl.

No.

Name of the Officer Designation

xxx xxx xxx

28. Shri Uttam Kumar Shaw S.D.J.M. Kalna

xxx Xxx xxx

I am to request that Government may be moved to issue

necessary orders in the matter of appointment of the aforesaid

officers, on promotion to the West Bengal Higher Judicial Services

after replacing the service of the concerned officers who are

holding / are in deputation post in Government or in the other

Institution already communicated under court’s letter No. 8553-A,

dated 23.12.2003.

I am to add that on receipt of orders / notification from the

Government the orders will be issued.

This may be treated as extremely urgent.”

The Appellant was posted as a Fast Track Judge, accordingly.

3

3. New rules in the form of the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service)

Rules, 2004 came into effect from 01.10.2004. Under these rules, three

modes of recruitment and appointment with the appropriate percentage were

prescribed, and seniority shall be fixed with respect to the 40-Point Roster

System against the vacancies that arise. The purpose of these regulations

was to fill all vacancies in the District Judge cadre as they occur.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were several

vacancies which arose from 2004 to 2008, against which the appellant was

eligible. The High Court was unsuccessful in its efforts to fill the vacant

posts. In 2009, vacancies were finally filled both through direct recruitment

and the selection of jump promotees through a limited competitive

examination among qualified Senior Judges in the cadre of Civil Judge,

Senior Division.

5. A draft notification was published by the High Court in the year 2011 by

which the promotees just like the appellant were placed below the above two

categories recruited/promoted in the year 2009. Noting that such persons

were entitled to be considered in the vacancies arose between 01.10.2004 to

31.12.2008, the earlier draft notification was superseded by subsequent one

dated 29.11.2016, as could be seen from the following paragraphs:

4

“Sub: Publication of fresh draft Gradation List for the officers

covered in the list belonging to the cadre of District Judge (Entry

Level) against the vacancies for the period from 01.10.2004 to

31.12.2008.

Sir,

I am directed to inform that the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to

prepare a fresh Draft Gradation List for the officers covered in the list

belonging to the cadre of District Judge (Entry Level) of the WSJS,

against the vacancies occurred during the period from 01.10.2004 to

31.12.2008, in supersession of the previous Draft Gradation List duly

published on 04.04.2013, and to direct for publishing the same inviting

views/objections, if any, from the officers covered in the list within a

period of 15 days time from the date of its publication. I am, accordingly,

to request you to cause circulation of the same amongst all the officers

appearing in the enclosed list, posted in your judgeship/on deputation, at

the earliest enabling them to submit views/objections, if any, so that the

same is reached at this end positively by the stipulated 15 days' time.

xxx xxx xxx”

“DRAFT GRADATION LIST OF THE OFFICERS

BELONGING TO THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE (ENTRY

LEVEL) OF THE WBJS AGAINST THE VACANCIES OCCURRED

FROM 01.10.2004 TO 31.12.2008, IN SUPRESSION OF EARLIER

DRAFT GRADATION LIST PUBLISHED ON 04.04.2013

Sl.

No.

Name

of the

Officers

Reasons of

occurrence

of vacancy,

viz. Date of

Retirement

(R)/Elevation

(E) / Death

of the Officer

(D)/

Voluntary

Retirement

(VR)/

Compulsory

Retirement

(CR)

Date of

occurrence

of vacancy

Merit

Position

as per

A.O.

Batch Remark

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

71. Sri

Uttam

Due to

retirement of

01.03.2008 NP/17th

/ 2010

1988

5

Kumar

Shaw

Sri Dulal

Chandra Dey

w.e.f.

29.02.2008

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

6. Incidentally, it has been stated that the gradation list of officer promotions

beginning in 2009 will be published in due time. Thus, in its wisdom, the

High Court deems it appropriate to consider the names, including that of the

appellant, for appointment in the cadre prior to 2009, by placing above two

other categories i.e. recruited/promoted. Apparently, this is for the reason

that the mistake at the hands of the High Court needs to be remedied. We

may note, the others appointed in the year 2009 were not born in the cadre at

that relevant point of time.

7. The aforesaid being a draft gradation list merely calling for objections, if

any, was put into challenge before the High Court on the judicial side. The

Writ Petition filed was allowed as rules have come to vogue, and thus, 40-

Point Roster has to be followed. On a challenge, the Division Bench while

concurring with the views of the learned Single Judge in part, followed its

earlier order in declining the relief to the appellant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the fact that

he was promoted to the rank of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service in the

year 2003 by the proceeding dated 24.12.2003, has been overruled. It is only

6

an administrative act in posting him to function as a Fast Track Court Judge

as there was no bar to posting to any other post in the cadre of a District

Judge. The mistake was that of the High Court which was sought to be

rectified by the impugned draft list which was published by the Registrar

(Judicial Service), High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta, dated 29.11.2016

against the vacancies which were available from the year 2004 to 2008. No

promotion whatsoever took place during that period. It is not as if all the

promotees would get seniority on a particular date but the date on which a

vacancy is made available against each of them is sought to be reckoned as

the date of appointment. If that is so, the date of appointment of the

appellant as a District Judge (Entry Level) would be 01.03.2008. The direct

recruits or the jump promotees were admittedly recruited and promoted in

the year 2009 alone. As a District Judge he was merely asked to man the

Fast Track Court. The position prior to the 2004 Rules is that there was only

one channel of promotion to the post of District Judge (Entry Level). As

facts not being considered in the correct perspective, the orders passed are

required to be overturned.

9. We have already recorded the stated position taken by the counsel appearing

for the respondents. At the outset, we do believe that the Writ Petition, as

filed, ought not to have entertained on draft gradation list calling for

7

objections. Be that as it may, we would like to decide the matter on merits,

particularly, when a specific stand has already been taken by the High Court

also.

10.We do not find any error in the administrative decision taken by the High

Court in facilitating the issuance of the impugned communication calling for

objection on the premise that eligible officers will have to be fitted against

the vacancies for the period from 1.10.2004 to 31.12.2008. It is the fair

acknowledgment on the part of the High Court to redeem the mistake

committed in not promoting the officers at the appropriate time. One cannot

withhold the due promotion of the promotees till the date of recruitment of

the direct recruits or appointment of the jump promotes. The consequence

would obviously be disastrous.

11.We have also noted that, it is not as if all the promotees were fitted in the

vacancies of the year 2004 but it was spread over between 2004 to 2008.

This is notwithstanding the fact that a decision was taken way back in the

year 2003 to promote as District Judges. In such view of the matter, the

orders passed by the High Court may require interference. However, we

make it clear that giving effect to the impugned draft gradation list, cannot

be made applicable to other officers who are not before us. As any

8

implementation might have a serious civil consequence, we are inclined to

observe so.

12.We have also been informed by the counsel appearing for few of the

contesting respondents that names of some of them have already been

cleared by the Collegium of the High Court as well as this Court, and

therefore, we make it clear that this judgment will not have any bearing on

such persons.

13.The appeal stands allowed. The judgments rendered by the learned Single

Judge and that of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta stand set

aside. The High Court and the State Government are directed to give effect

to the impugned draft gradation list insofar as the appellant alone is

concerned, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the

copy of this judgment. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

……………………………J.

 (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL)

……………………………J.

(M.M. SUNDRESH)

New Delhi,

September 13, 2022