AJAIB SINGH DATEER Vs. LT GOVERNOR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in these proceedings is now a retired judicial officer of the Delhi Judicial Service (hereafter "DJS"); he is aggrieved by the annual confidential report (ACR) gradings recorded by the Full Court of the Delhi High Court for three years and the consequent denial of selection grade to him. He accordingly seeks appropriate directions for the quashing of such ACR gradings and consequential directions to grant him promotion to the higher judicial service with effect from the date his juniors in DJS were granted such benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, those juniors to him were promoted to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS); he therefore wished that he too should be given the same benefit from the date or dates such juniors were promoted.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner, a postgraduate who also completed his law degree in 1973, had competed in the exam held for filling vacancies in DJS, but was not appointed in that year. He eventually secured appointment after his selection in 1979. He complains that when his turn for award of senior scale was due, it was denied, in 1984, but was eventually granted that with effect from 06.11984, by an order issued on 18.01.1996. In the meanwhile, he was on deputation as Presiding officer, Labour Court for the period 21.01.1993 to 18.05.1996. The petitioner states that his case for grant of selection grade should have been taken up in 1994, but was not so, and that those junior to him were granted selection grade. The petitioner submits that he was diligent in the discharge of his responsibilities during his career and that the overlooking of his claim for selection grade was without any rhyme or reason. In 1992, the petitioner's ACR for 1989 was recorded as B+; on 07.04.1994, by letter, he was informed that the ACRs for the period 1990 to 1992 were recorded by the Full Court again as B+. On 29.09.1995, the petitioners' ACRs for the years 1993 and 1994 were recorded; he was awarded B+ (Good) for these years. It is stated that in these circumstances, the tenure or period of his deputation ended on 18.05.1996. Soon thereafter, on 205.1996, as per the departmental promotion committee (DPC), 12 vacancies in the cadre of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) arose; six persons were selected; they were just above the petitioner in seniority. It is stated that when the issue of consideration of his name for promotion arose, the concerned authorities felt that his ACRs were incomplete and there were some other reservations. In these circumstances, consideration of names for filling the other vacancies was deferred.

(3.) The petitioner states that he was asked by the fourth respondent, a then sitting judge of the High Court, to send copies of the award and other related work done by him, on 12.07.1996, which he complied with; this was for the year 1995. He was posted as Senior Civil Judge, on 24.07.1994; shortly thereafter, he was posted (on 29.08.1996) as Judge- Small Causes court. Stating this as unfortunate, the petitioner protested this, as well as the promotion of five of his juniors to the cadre of DHJS (through order dated 01.10.1996), by representation dated 010.1996. Later, on 30.10.1996, the High court communicated his ACR grading as "C" for the year 1995. The petitioner also represented against this grading, which was adverse to him and impeded his career growth, by citing certain Central Government circulars and instructions dated 31.10.1961 and 18.08.1967 to say that the parent department of a deputationist officer is obliged to maintain his annual confidential reports and that only a superior officer who had at least 3 months supervision time of any particular official can record the latter's ACRs. The petitioner complained that no High Court judge had visited his court or had occasion to supervise his conduct and that consequently the "C" grading (for 1995) was unfair and improperly awarded to him. He sought its expunction and the upgrading of his grading; further, he sought for his promotion to the DHJS cadre from the date his junior was promoted to it. These representations were rejected after the Full Court (of the High Court) deliberated on them; the petitioner was communicated this rejection on 209.1997, by a letter.