RAM KRISHNA TIWARI Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE M P
LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-31
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (FROM: GWALIOR)
Decided on October 09,1980

RAM KRISHNA TIWARI Appellant
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE M P Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UNION OF INDIA V. JASWANT RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. ABRAHAM [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA MOHAN V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
PARSHOTAM LAL DHINGRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JEEWAN RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. GOPI KISHORE PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAM NARAYAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV LAXMAN VAIKUNTHE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
MADAN GOPAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JUGDISH MITTER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPAKLAL CHIMANLAL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NRIPENDRA NATH BAGEHI [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY MYSORE VS. S RAGHAVENDRACHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. RANGA MUHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
A G BENJAMIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SUKH RAJ BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL CHATURVEDI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CHAMPALAL KISHANLAL MOHTAF [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SHIVA BHIKSHUK MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
SAMSHER SINGH ISHWAR CHAND AGARWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL MANAGER VS. PAWAN KUMAR DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
S B PATWARDHAN K V RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BHOOP SINGH VERMA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VEERAPPA R SABOJI [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. DK MD S ISKENDERALI [REFERRED TO]
NEPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH MANOHAR RAO VIHITE VS. BHOPAL VISHWA VIDYALAYA BHOPAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DR. K.C. BARUA VS. DR. N. AHMED AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1983-7-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the petitioner's reversion from the post of District and Sessions Judge to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
(2.)SHORTLY put, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a District and Sessions Judge (for short 'd. J. ') in substantive capacity by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh vide Order No. 3555-560-XXI-B, dated 31st January 1973, (Annexure P-l), published in the M. P. Rajpatra dated 30th March 1973. After his appointment, he worked as D. J. at Ambikapur. From there, he was transferred as D. J. to Jagdalpur. From Jagdalpur, it was on the basis of some complaints and reports that the petitioner was telegraphically and by wireless message transferred on 2 4-1978 to Bhind. There, the petitioner continued to function as D. J. till he was reverted to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge (for short 'a. D. J. ') vide order (Annexure P-2) No. 12369/2-3-1 /78 (Part I), Jabalpur, dated 24th July, 1978, passed in accordance with an order (Annexure R-11/3) passed by respondent No. 2 on 7th June 1978. Hence, this petition.
(3.)THE facts and circumstances in which and the ground on which challenge to the impugned order has been given by the petitioner, are as under:-
(a) that he was appointed as D. J. in substantive capacity; (b) that in the matter of confirmation, the Rules for Special Direct recruitment of District and Sessions Judges, 1964, (For short the '1964 rules'), be deemed to apply to cases of D. Js. appointed by promotion like him. As such, he should be deemed to have been confirmed on 20th July 1974 as there was nothing to suggest by that date that he was not suitable for confirmation; (c) that D. Js. who were junior to him, were confirmed whereas confirmation of the petitioner was arbitrarily postponed. This was due to absence of a valid and fair criterion for dealing with the matters regarding confirmation; (d) that in Sal-Seed preliminary inquiry nothing was found against him; that during the period of Sal-Seed inquiry he was attached as O. S. D. in the main Registry of the High Court of M. P. at Jabalpur, but after conclusion of the inquiry he was reposted as D. J. vide order dated 4/5-5-1975; (e) that since his appointment as D. J. no adverse remarks were communicated to him; (f) that sanction was granted for crossing Efficiency Bar vide order of the respondent No. 1, dated 28th February 1977 (Annexure P-3) which records satisfaction regarding his efficiency; (g) that the order of his reversion is based on false and malicious reports, and, that the respondent No. 1 appears to have been misled and prejudiced thereby. These reports are the foundation of the order of reversion dated 7th June 1978 (Annexure R-II/3) as well as order dated 24th July 1978 (Annexure P-3); (h) that the impugned order of reversion is void being violative of articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India; and (i) that even the petitioner has been shown at serial number 12 as 'a. D. J. ' as on 17-8-1978, the date of his confirmation as A. D. J. being '11-10-1967'. This entails loss of seniority and visits him with evil consequence including loss of pay.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.