- (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against- (i) the High Court's administrative order No. 2209/111-18-126/63 dated 12 March 1964 whereby an appeal preferred by one T. P. Shrivastava (respondent 3) was allowed and he was restored to the post of stenographer to the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, with effect from the date of his taking over charge o ( the post; and (ii) an order dated 13 March 1964 by which, in implementing the aforesaid order of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, jabalpur (respondent 2), cancelled the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of stenographer to the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. reverted him to a lower post of clerk-stenographer and stopped his special allowance of Rs. 25/ -.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition arc simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner and the respondent 3 were working as clerk-stenographers in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, from 23 December 1946 and 5 June 1947 respectively and they were subsequently confirmed on those posts. In the year 1957, the services of one R. G. Bhatt, the permanent stenographer to the district and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, were transferred to the Registry of this court. It was decided to fill up that post by selection. A competitive examination, in which all clerk-stenographers were allowed to participate, was then held and the respondent 3. who secured the highest marks, was selected. He was duly appointed to the post in which he worked in an ofiiciating capacity from 23 december 1957 to 6 July 1960. It transpired that the services of the respondent 3 too had to be placed at the disposal of the Registry of this Court for two years. During this period, the petitioner was appointed to work as stenographer to the district and Sessions Judge. Jabalpur, on a temporary basis Even so. on return from the Registry, the respondent 3 was posted as clerk-stenographer to the First additional District Judge, Jabalpur. Being aggrieved by that order dated 29 June 1962, the respondent 3 represented against it. By an order dated 19 Angust 1963 the District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. rejected that representation and confirmed the petitioner on the post of stenographer. Against this order, respondent 3 preferred an appeal to the High Court and then the two orders, which have been called in question in these proceedings, were passed.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12 March 1964 and 13 March 1964 on the several grounds set out in para graph 8 of the petition. All these grounds have been controverted in the returns filed by the two sets of respondents Having heard the counsel, we have formed the opinion that there is no substance in the petitioner's grievances and that he is disentitled to the assistance of this Court. We would briefly indicate in the following paragraphs the reasons for our conclusion.;