SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Senice. He sought voluntary retirement on 18th of September, 1992. He filed the present writ petition for quashing the order dated 21st of December, 1984 which, according to him, was a reversion order.
(2.) THE petitioner joined the Rajasthan Judicieal Service on 18th of September, 1967 as Munsif Magistrate. He was promoted as Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30th of November, 1976. He was given an officiating appointment as Additional District Judge on 3rd April,1981 against a temporary post. This appointment was made under Rule 22 of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 which runs as follows: - "22. Temporary or Officiating Appointment: On the occurrence of temporary or permanent vacancies the Court shall recommend to the Governor the names of the candidates from amongst the persons who are eligible for appointment to the service by promotion under clause (i) of rule 8 for temporary or officiating appointment. " During his officiating period, he earned bad entries in his Annual Confidential Report for the year, 1983. His representation was considered and rejected. Apart from it, the following departmental enquiries under Rules. 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 were initiated against him: - Deptl. Enquiry. Position. 1. R/vig/44/84 Order reserved. 2. R/vig/168/84 For evidence. 3 R/vig/55/82 Drafting of charges and allegations completed (with regard to corrupt motives false T. A. Bills etc.) PENDING - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY, 1. R/vig/250/85 Regarding absent from duty and leaving hqrs. without premission of D. J. The Full Court, after considering the matter, rightly took a decision to send him back to his original cadre post as he was not found fit to continue as Additional District Judge. While doing so, the Full Court did not commit any breach of statutory provision nor there was any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The law is well settled that a person who is given an officiating appointment in the cadre of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service under Rule 22 of the 1969 Rules, does not get a right to hold the post. Such appointments are given in order to adjudge his suitability. The appointment on officiating basis is entirely different from the appointment on substantive basis. The appointment made under Rule 22 cannot be equated with the appointments made under Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules, 1969. These rules contemplate regular promotions on the basis of seniority- cum-merit from amongst the members of Rajasthan Judicial Service who are found to be eligible for such promotions under Rule 11.
(3.) THE petitioner, who was given the officiating appointment, having not been found suitable to hold the post, has simply been asked to go back to his original post of the Rajasthan Judicial Service. THE impugned order, in no way, is discriminatory or arbitrary. It is not a penal order. As many as eleven Judicial Officers including the petitioner were not found fit to be given regular promotion by the Full Court. In order to test the nature of the impugned order, whether it amounts to reversion, reference may be made to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Explanation (1) to Rule 14 runs as under: - "the following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule: - (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) reversion to a lower service, grade or post of a Government servant officiating in a higher service grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial to be unsuitable for such higher Service, grade or post on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. " Thus, even 1958 Rules do not recognise such an order as a punishment under the Rules. This also disentitles the petitioner to get any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Vide order dated 21st of December, 1984, the petitioner was posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, vice Shri R. K. Rawat. The said order is under challenge on the ground that it is not only a simple transfer/posting order, but it amounts to reversion from the post of Additional District Judge to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate. By the common order dated 21st of December, 1984, as many as 11 persons, including the petitioner, who were given officiating appointments as ADJ, were asked to go back and work as CJM. Out of them - (1) Shri B. D. Johari, (2) R. P. Mitruka, (3) M. P. Mittal, (4)C. L. Banthia, (5) V. D. Vyas, and (6) R. S. Sharma had filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. They have been dismissed. The effect of the order is that the validity of the impugned order of the Full Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court. There are no compelling reasons before this Court to take a contrary view in the case of the petitioner. ;