V. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) SRI D. K. Agarwal was inducted in the U. P. Nyayik Sewa as a Munsif in the year 1957. He was confirmed, after his first posting on February 25, 1959 as a Munsif, on February 25, 1961. In January, 1968 he was posted as a Civil Judge and was confirmed as such in Marsh, 1974. In this State, like many others, there is a Higher Judicial Service. It is governed by the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 (briefly, the Rules). D. K. Agarwal was promoted to this service on October 13, 1971. He was selected for this service on the criterion contained in rule 20 (3) namely, seniority-cum-merit. On April 20, 1977 he was confirmed in this Service. He was appointed as a District Judge on October 31, 1983.
(2.) SOME posts in the Higher Judicial Service are to be filled in by officers in the Selection Grade. Rule 27 regulates the grant of Selection Grade. It says :- " 27. Appointment to the Selection Grade-Appointment to the Selection Grade posts in the service shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the court from amongst the members of the service holding the post of District and Sessions Judge on the basis of merit ". The Service also has some posts in the super-time scale in respect whereof rule 27-A was added to the Rules in the year 1984. It says : " 27-A. Appointment to the supertime scale posts in the Service shall be made by the Court from amongst the members of the Service holding Selection Grade posts on the basis of merit ". D. K. Agarwal was considered for grant of Seiection Grade. He was recommended for it by a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges. The recommendation was accepted in a meeting of the Full Court held on January 25, 1986. According to his case, D. K. Agarwal became due for grant of a supertime scale on August 1, 1986. However, in a meeting of the Full Court held on January 17, 1987 he was found not fit for grant of supertime scale. It is this decision which has been assailed by D. K. Agar,\al in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was presented before the court on March 9, 1987. The respondents were called upon to place their version in the form of a counter affidavit before the admission of the writ petition. They have done so. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed in reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner by which he purported to place the events, that took place subsequent to the presentation of the writ petition, on the record. After filing of the rejoinder affidavit, counsel for the parties prayed that the petition be heard finally and disposed of at the admission stage itself. We heard them at some length and proceed to decide it finally.
(3.) THE petitioner says that, along with the other eligible officers for grant of supertime scale, his case was also considered by the Selection Committee consisting of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court and the Committee, after thoroughly scrutinising his service record and being satisfied that he was possessed of necessary merit, recommended his name for the grant of supertime scale. THE recommendations were placed before a meeting of the Full Court on May 17, 1986. In this meeting one of the Hon'ble Judges (Hon, Mr. Justice K. N. Misra) complained orally against the petitioner in respect of his alleged involvement in some smuggling activity in June, 1985 at which the matter was deferred for consideration to a subsequent meeting. THE case of the petitioner is that in May, 1986 some inquiry was conducted by Justice K. N. Misra behind the back of the petitioner through the District Judge, Gonda on the basis whereof he made the allegations against the petitioner in the Full Court meeting of May 17, 1986. THE District Judge is said to have written to the District Magistrate, Gonda inquiring about the involvement of the petitioner in smuggling activities who, after making inquiry into the matter, found the accusation as malicious and baseless and wrote to the District Judge around May 31, 1986. THE petitioner also says that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Misra made inquiries from the Secretary, Vigilance, U. P. Government, who also informed him that there was no truth in the allegation that the petitioner was involved in any smuggling activity. The petitioner was, however, asked by the Registrar of the Hon'ble Court that he was required to appear before the Selection Committee on July 12, 1986. The petitioner did so and, according to him, no inquiry was made from him by the Selection Committee about the allegation of his involvement in smuggling activity.;