In a recent legal case, the High Court resolved a dispute regarding judicial promotions through a detailed legal analysis. The case centered around the implementation of a draft gradation list for judicial officers, with significant implications for the promotion process. The Court’s decision established guidelines for future promotions and addressed issues of seniority and appointment procedures. Let’s delve into the details of this landmark judgment.
Facts
- The counsel for the High Court expressed willingness to implement any decision made by the Court.
- The counsel for the contesting respondents stated that they do not wish to pursue the matter further.
- Vacancies filled through direct recruitment and selection of jump promotees through a limited competitive examination among Senior Judges in the cadre of Civil Judge, Senior Division.
- Government to issue necessary orders for appointment of officers on promotion to the West Bengal Higher Judicial Services.
- Communication sent to Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal regarding officers deemed suitable for empanelment in the rank of West Bengal Higher Judicial Services.
- Appellant joined the Judicial Service in 1989 as a Civil Judge, Junior Division.
- Draft notification published in 2011 placing promotees below the categories recruited/promoted in 2009.
Also Read: Ex post facto Environmental Clearance in Bio-Medical Waste Case
Arguments
- Appellant’s promotion to the rank of West Bengal Higher Judicial Service in 2003 has been overruled.
- Appellant was eligible for several vacancies that arose from 2004 to 2008.
Also Read: Land Dispute Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The High Court rectified its mistake of not promoting officers at the appropriate time by issuing a draft gradation list in 2016 against vacancies from 2004 to 2008.
- A Writ Petition challenging the draft gradation list was allowed as rules required following a 40-Point Roster.
- High Court’s administrative decision to call for objections on the draft list was deemed appropriate to fill vacancies from 2004 to 2008.
- Three modes of recruitment and appointments were prescribed under the rules, with seniority determined by the 40-Point Roster System.
- The High Court’s efforts to fill vacant posts between 2004 and 2008 were unsuccessful, and no promotions occurred during that period.
- The appointment of the appellant as a District Judge (Entry Level) was considered valid, and the posting as a Fast Track Court Judge was an administrative act.
- The orders passed by the High Court may require interference
- The impugned draft gradation list should not be applied to other officers not before the court
- Implementation of the draft gradation list may have serious civil consequences
- Names of some respondents have already been cleared by the Collegium of the High Court and this Court; the judgment will not affect them
- A decision was made in 2003 to promote certain individuals as District Judges
Also Read: Analysis of Limitation in IBC Proceedings
Decision
- Judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta set aside.
- High Court and State Government directed to implement the draft gradation list for the appellant within 12 weeks.
- Pending application(s) disposed of.
- The appeal has been allowed.
Case Title: UTTAM KUMAR SHAW Vs. PARTHA SARATHI SEN (2022 INSC 950)
Case Number: C.A. No.-011698-011698 / 2018
