Supreme Court of India
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs The Honble High Court For … on 30 November, 2021Author: Uday Umesh Lalit
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 1729-1736 OF 2021
R.P.(C) NO.1471/2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 936/2018, R.P(C) NO.1472/2020 IN
W.P(C)NO. 897/2019, R.P.(C) NO.1473/2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 1471/2018, R.P.(C)
NO.1475/2020 IN W.P(C)NO 464/2019, R.P.(C) NO.1476/2020 IN W.P(C) NO.
899/2019, R.P.(C) NO.1477/2020 IN W.P(C) NO.498/2019, R.P.(C) NO.1478/2020
IN W.P(C) NO. 610/2020, R.P.(C) NO.1479/2020 IN W.P(C)NO.967/2018.
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND ANR. …Petitioners
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR JUDICATURE
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. …Respondents
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION D.NO. 25663/2021
R.P.(C) NO.1471/2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 936/2018
(Dinesh Kumar Gupta and anr. vs. The Hon’ble High Court for Judicature of
Rajasthan and ors.)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
1. The substratum of these Review Petitions is that all 47 Judicial Officers
promoted in the year 2010 and those who were appointed as direct recruits or
through LCE on 15.07.2013, to the cadre of District Judge were part of the
same selection process and therefore the cyclic order ought to have been
2. After considering the Report of the Committee of five-Judges of the
High Court and the rival submissions, this Court held that substantive
promotion granted to those 47 Judicial Officers vide order dated 21.04.2010
could not be taken to be part of the same selection process where direct
recruits and candidates through LCE were appointed to the cadre of District
Judge on 15.07.2013. Reliance was placed on the decision of three-Judge
Bench of this Court in K. Meghachandra Singh and Ors. v. Ningam Siro and
Others1 which had overruled the decision of this Court in Union of India and
Others v. N. R. Parmar and Others2.
3. It is also urged in the Review Petitions that certain observations made
by this Court in paragraphs 8, 15 and 16 of the Judgment, on the basis of which
conclusions were arrived at in paragraph no. 41, were without any basis and
contrary to the material placed on record.
1 (2020) 5 SCC 689 : 2019 SCC Online SC 1494
2 (2012) 13 SCC 340
4. In paragraph 14 of the Judgment, the stand taken by the High Court in
its affidavit filed in the matter of Malik Mazhar Sultan and ors. vs. U.P.
Public Service Commission3 was noted and some portion from that affidavit
was quoted. Said affidavit was placed on record alongwith the reply filed by
Mr. Sanchit Garg, learned Advocate on 28.08.2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
936 of 2018.
5. The reply filed by the High Court dealt in Malik Mazhar3 had dealt
with steps taken pursuant to the Report dated 23.08.2008 of the Committee
regarding grant of promotions to the post of Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Regular) and Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track). The
events detailed in said reply show that the matter was considered by the Full
Court in its meeting held on 20.03.2010, whereafter, the Committee convened
its meeting on 5th and 6th April, 2010 and submitted its Report, which was then
placed before the Full Court in its meeting held on 10.04.2010. Pursuant to
the Resolution of the Full Court, the matter was again considered by the
Committee on 12.04.2010 and 13.04.2010.
3 (2006) 9 SCC 507
6. It was in this background that the formal order dated 21.04.2010 was
passed by the State Government in view of the recommendations made by the
High Court regarding promotion of those 47 Judicial Officers.
7. However, there appears to be a typographical error in paragraph 15, in
that the matter was taken up by the Full Court on 20.03.2010 and not on
23.03.2010. All the other details were only by way of narration of factual
developments. The sum and substance of the matter was the recommendation
that 47 Judicial Officers be promoted to the posts of Additional District and
8. As dealt with in the Judgment under review, many of the direct recruits
were not even eligible to be considered as on that date. The direct recruits and
officers through LCE came to be appointed on 15.07.2013 i.e., more than three
years after such promotion of those 47 Judicial Officers.
9. In K. Meghachandra’s1 case the promotees had entered the relevant
grade in March, 2017, whereas, the direct recruits were appointed in August
and November, 2007. Even then, the claim made on behalf of the direct
recruits on the basis of the decision in Parmar2 was rejected. This aspect was
noticed in paragraph 41.3 of the Judgment under review.
10. In the circumstances, the persons who had entered the cadre more than
three years earlier were found to be rightly placed en block senior to all the
candidates selected through the process initiated pursuant to the notification
11. Thus, none of the grounds raised in the Review Petitions make out
any error apparent on record to justify interference.
12. These Review Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
13. No orders are called for on the Miscellaneous Applications.
14. The Registry is however directed to issue corrigendum and correct the
error stated in paragraph 7 hereinabove.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]
30th November, 2021.