- (1.) We have heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Amit Sthalekar for respondent No. 2 at great length.
(2.) While working on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge under Rule 22(3) of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred as 1975 Rules) since 20.3.2001, the petitioner has filed above noted writ petition challenging the select list of U.P. Higher Judicial Service Examination 2009 prepared under Rule 20 of the said Rule so far as it denies regular promotion of the petitioner against substantive vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judge in U.P. Higher Judicial Service. In alternative he has prayed for issue of writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to include his name in the list of successful candidates for appointment against substantive vacancies of Additional District and Sessions Judge in pursuant to U.P. Higher Judicial Service Examination 2009 and grant him all consequential benefits and pay salary to the petitioner on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge as and when it becomes due and any other suitable writ or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) The reliefs sought in the writ petition rest on facts that the petitioner was initially appointed as Munsif on 6.4.1981 after due selection. He was confirmed on the post of Munsif on 20.2.1988 thereafter he was confirmed as Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) on 17.2.1990. After serving in cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) in various capacities for quite long time, by virtue . of notification dated 20.3.2001 he was granted promotion on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in stop-gap arrangement under Rule 22 (3) of 1975 Rules. It is stated that while working on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the said capacity a complaint dated 17.10.2003 was made against the petitioner, in pursuant thereof he was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.4.2005. Thereafter Departmental Inquiry was held against him and he was punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 8.5.2007 and the order of suspension was revoked forthwith. The period of suspension ending with the reinstatement of the petitioner was treated as period spent on duty for retiral benefits only. During the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance paid to him, he was not paid his salary over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him.;