- (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 15th January, 1991, Annexure III to the writ petition by which petitioner's representation addressed to Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court, against the adverse entry awarded to him, has been rejected and order dated 17th January, 1991, Annexure IV to the writ petition, by which petitioner has been found not fit for promotion to the higher pay scale. In this writ petition, on 19th March, 1991 a report was called from the Registrar as to whether under rules the learned District Judge can reject the representation filed by petitioner raising grievance against adverse entries awarded to him by learned District Judge. The same day the learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit.
(2.) The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to file counter-affidavit. The learned Standing Counsel appearing today said that looking to the controversy involved in this case no counter-affidavit is required and petition may be heard and decided at this stage for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed. Registrar has submitted his report. I have considered the report of Registrar and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner was awarded bad entry by the learned District Judge. He disagreed with the entry placed before him for the year 1989-90 and by his order dated 1st September, 1990 he awarded the following entry to the petitioner; Annual entry for the year 1989-90 of Sri R.L. Lingwal, copyist, Entry not approved. He is thoroughly incompetent and negligent. He has not improved. Every month, there is complaint against him. Integrity is however certified. Sd/- S.K. Mishra, District Judge. 1-9-1990. Petitioner represented against the aforesaid entry by sending a representation to Hon'ble Administrative Judge. In Para 3 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that feeling aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge dated 1-9-1990, petitioner sent a representation on 12th October, 1990 to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, High Court, Allahabad and a copy thereof was sent to the District Judge, Pauri for his information and necessary action; for being forwarded to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge High Court, Allahabad. A copy of the representation has been filed as Annexure II to the writ petition. From perusal of the aforesaid representation, it appears that it was addressed to Hon'ble Administrative Judge of this Court. At the bottom of the representation it has been said that the advance copy is being sent to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, High Court, Allahabad. However, on the front page, there is no mention that it is submitted through proper channel or through District Judge. From perusal of para 3 of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner submitted a copy of the learned District Judge for being forwarded to Hon'ble Administrative Judge and advance copy was also sent directly to Hon'ble Administrative Judge. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned District Judge vide order dated 15th January, 1991 on merits. The learned District Judge has considered the entries awarded to the petitioner in 1981-82, 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1988 and has relied on his own annual inspection 1989-90. He has also taken notice of reports of various Sadar Munsarims against him and rejected the representation. In the last paragraph of the impugned order it has been observed that the petitioner should have' addressed his representation, against adverse annual entry, to the District Judge, as provided under Rules but he directly addressed it to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge which is wrong and against the rules. It has been further said that the representation against the adverse entries was also not forwarded by his immediate Officer i.e. Officer-in-charge, Copying and it was wrongly presented to the District Judge directly which is wrong and against the rules, therefore instead of forwarding it to the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, it should be rejected and is rejected. Thereafter on 17th January, 1991 learned District Judge passed the order superseding the claim of petitioner for promotion in higher pay scale by promoting persons junior to petitioner. One of the ground for rejecting the claim of petitioner for promotion, is the aforesaid adverse entry, against which his representation has been rejected. It has also been said that the work and conduct of petitioner shall be watched for another period of six months. Aforesaid two orders have been questioned by filing this petition.;