Bharucha, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave which was filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on a writ petition filed by the first respondent. By reason of the order dated 17th August, 1994 the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Ministry of Law, was impleaded, upon his own application, as the second appellant.
(2.) The order under challenge states that the first respondent shall be deemed to have been confirmed in the post of Civil Judge, Class II with effect from 5th February, 1973 and, in that behalf quashes the resolutions or decisions of the Full Court of 5th February 1973, 27th July, 1974, 26th April, 1976 and 5th May, 1985.
(3.) The first respondent was appointed Civil Judge Class II having been selected by the M. P. Public Service Commission along with 43 others who, along with the appellants, were respondents to the writ petition. He was the first in the Commission's merit list. On 23rd November, 1971, the High Court informed the 1st respondent that he needed to be prompt in disposing of applications for temporary injunctions and in the matter of delivery of judgments. He also had to be firm in the matter of adjournments of civil suits at the stage of evidence. On 30th September, 1972, the District Judge in whose district the first respondent was posted made the following remarks in the first respondent's confidential report for the period ending 30th September, 1972: "1. He is Civil Judge Class II and Magistrate First Class without summary powers. 2. I have not heard anything against his honesty and integrity although inquiries in this behalf were made by me at the time of annual inspection of his Court on 17-1 1-1972 from some senior members of the Bar at Manipur. 3. When I visited Manipur for annual inspection of his Court on 17-11-1972, it was reported to me by some of the members of the Bar at that station that he did not begin his judicial work punctually at 11 A.M. and used to remain in his chamber for more than sufficient time during the Court-hours. Suitable instructions in this behalf were immediately given by me to him orally. A surprise visit was paid by me to his Court on 17-5-1972 at 11.35 A.M. when he was found examining an accused in his chamber. 4. He has adequate knowledge of the procedural and substantive law. Both civil and criminal, and he endeavours to follow the same correctly. His judgments both civil and criminal are in proper form and fairly well written. At the stage of evidence in civil suits, he was found to have failed to record the hours between which evidence was recorded and to have deviated from Rule 133 of the Civil Courts Rules. The provision regarding opening of cases at that stage was also found to have been ignored by him. His order-sheets were found to have been written mostly by the Court-clerks. His judicial diary was not judiciously arranged. More than sufficient work was found to have been fixed. Periodical inspections were not thoroughly done by him. 5. His disposal during the period under report was below the prescribed standard in every month, except the disposal for the months of May and June. 6. His relations with the members of the Bar remained cordial and his behaviour towards the litigants polite. 7. It has yet to be seen whether he follows the advise and directions given by me to him at the time of annual inspection of his Court." At the foot thereof, the then learned Chief Justice endorsed the following, "unsatisfactory. To be watched for 6 months." ;