CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment.
(2.) THE facts, necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of these two writ petitions, briefly stated, are: FACTS OF MAHESH SINGH's CASE: THE case of the petitioner is that he joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 15. 5. 1973 and was posted as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. Later on, he was confirmed on the post of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate. He has submitted that from September 1982 to June 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangaria and from June 1985 to September 1985, he worked as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra. Bhadra and Sangaria towns are situated in Sri Ganganagar district. THEreafter, from 23. 09. 1985 to December 1985, he worked as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratangarh in Churu district. According to him, his ACRs of the year 1983-84, 1984-85 were given by the District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar as also by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu and they gave a good chit to him but the Reviewing authority in his APARs of 1983-84 mentioned that his integrity is doubtful. In his APARs of the year 1984, it has been recorded that he is not a good Officer and integrity is doubtful. THE Reviewing Authority has also recorded in his APARs of the year 1985 that he is not a good Officer. He has submitted that these remarks have been made by the Reviewing Authority without any basis. THE aforesaid adverse entries were communicated to the petitioner vide letters dated 11. 6. 1986, 11. 6. 1986 and 16. 8. 1986. Against these adverse entries, the petitioner made representations but they were rejected vide letters dated 1. 2. 1988 and 1. 12. 1988. According to the petitioner, the reasons for rejection of his representations were not conveyed to him. He has submitted that certain false and vague complaints were made against him during this period but the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, after enquiry, found those charges groundless. He has further submitted that in the year 1984, his Court was inspected by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Sidhu twice. The first was a regular inspection and the other was surprise inspection. However, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Order No. Esstt. (RJS)/104/85 dated 17. 9. 1985. Thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order No. Estt/ (RJS)/114/88 dated 10. 6. 1988 and thereafter he was given promotion in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service vide Order No. PA/9/ (l)Judl. /83 dated 27. 2. 1991. His promotion to the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was only for a period of six months but no such provision exists in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') to give promotion for a particular period. His promotion order to RHJS has been filed and marked as Annexure-4. This promotion was given to him under the provisions of R. 22 of the Rules. He was posted as Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 6. 3. 1991 and from Jaisalmer, vide order dated 29. 6. 1991, he was transferred to the post of Judge, Special Court for SC/st Cases, Jodhpur. His appointment to RHJS was further extended for a period of three months by the State Govt. vide its order dated 28. 11. 1991. However, the petitioner received some information that he is being reverted from RHJS to RJS on account of the Full Court Resolution dated 19. 12. 1991 and he has reason to believe that the Committee of Hon'ble Judges which recommended his reversion have taken into consideration his 7 years' ACRs including of the year 1984-85. According to him, when promotions were considered by the end of the year 1991, APARs from 1985-86 should have been considered. He has submitted that the rule reading to consideration of 7 years' APARs was made applicable to his case only otherwise earlier, 3 to 5 years record was only looked into and this is what was done in the case of Shri R. P. Mitruka, Shri O. P. Gupta, Shri Mangal Chand Tailor, Shri S. S. Gupta, Smt. Kusum Bhandari, Shri Bhanwarlal Sharma, Shri K. C. Jain, Shri S. D. Bansal, Shri V. D. Gupta and number of other Officers. He has further submitted that despite these adverse ACRs of the year 1984-85, he has been promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate as also Additional District & Sessions Judge and, therefore, all these adverse ACRs stand washed- off. It was contended that he has also been given selection scale of RJS by this very Full Court on the basis of seniority cum merit. He has, therefore, challenged his order of reversion from RHJS to RJS being without jurisdiction. It was contended by the petitioner that the basis of his reversion is the adverse entries made in his APARs of the year 1984-85 and those entries cannot be considered now as after writing those adverse entries, he has been promoted on the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Civil Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional District & Sessions Judge. He has submitted that actually those entries were considered by the Full Court when promotions were granted to him on the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional District & Sessions Judge. The rule relating to consideration of 7 years' APARs or ACRs cannot be made applicable to his case because the vacancies of Additional District & Sessions Judges have arisen prior to the acceptance of that rule itself. He has submitted that there is no such provision in the Rules which permits the High Court to review its own earlier decision whereby promotion has been accorded to an Officer from RJS to RHJS. If the petitioner is reverted to RJS cadre, he will suffer irreparable loss and will rank junior to at least 35 Officers. He has, therefore, prayed that the High Court be restrained from doing so and his seniority may be protected. He has further prayed that the adverse entries made in the year 1984-85 may be expunged. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, in which, it was contended that adverse entries pertaining to the year 1984-85 were conveyed to the petitioner and against those entries, he made a representation and that representation was considered and rejected and, therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in M. P. Mittal Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (1) and eight other similar writ petitions, decided on 26. 2. 1990, the plea for expunging the Adverse entries made in the APARS of the petitioner in the year 1984-85, taken by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. It was submitted that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Sidhu inspected the Court of the petitioner in the year 1983 and not in the year 1984. The averment as regards promotions of the petitioner to the posts of Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate were not controverted but it was contended that his promotion to RHJS was purely temporary made on urgent adhoc temporary basis and, therefore, that will not confer any right on the petitioner. According to respondent No. 1, his candidature was considered on the basis of R. 22 of the Rules and, therefore, when regular promotion was considered, his case could be reconsidered. It was a tenure appointment and when a tenure appointment comes to an end, the services of such a tenured appointee could be terminated. It was submitted that on the basis of the decision taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on 9. 11. 1990, no orders were issued. The Full Court only considered the candidature of eligible candidates for promotions to RHJS cadre. It decided who are fit and who are not fit for promotion to RHJS cadre. As the tenure appointment of the petitioner expired, he automatically stands reverted to his original cadre because he was not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre by the Full Court. The petitioner was not being reverted to RJS cadre as a measure of punishment. According to respondent No. 1, as the year 1991 was in progress when promotions to RHJS cadre were being considered, the past 7 years' APARs and record of the eligible candidates were required to be considered and that period pertained to the year 1984 to 1990. It is true that past 7 years record was screened in all the cases and after considering that record of all eligible candidates the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to RHJS cadre by the Full Court and, therefore, it was not a case of any discrimination being exercised in his case.
(3.) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, when the petitioner was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the year 1985, his APARs for the year 1985 and 1986 were not available and so, they could not be communicated to him and therefore, they were not taken into consideration. It was submitted that in M. P. Mittal's case (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that even after promotion, if the Officer concerned earned adverse entries then such tike or similar entries which existed against the petitioner prior to the promotions can be considered while considering his further promotion. It was submitted that the decision of the Full Court to consider past 7 years' record does not violate the provisions of any rules. The High Court has already issued Order Annexure-R. l dated 8. 1. 1992 reverting the petitioner as Civil Judge cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate and that order, according to respondent No. l, is totally just and fair and, therefore, it cannot be quashed. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition deserves to be submitted with Costs. A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in which, the contentions which have been raised in the writ petition have been reiterated. Written submissions were also filed but when the case came up for arguments, oral submissions were made in detail and, therefore, these written submissions need not be referred to. FACTS OF NARAIN LAL's CASE: Petitioner Narainlal joined Rajasthan Judicial Service on 29. 8. 1973. He was promoted as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29. 6. 1983 in pursuance of the Full Court resolution, on adhoc basis. He was reverted back as Munsif & Judicial Magistrate by the High Court vide its order dated 5. 7. 1984. He was promoted back as Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17. 9. 1985 and as Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30. 8. 1988. He was further promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 27. 2. 1991. ;