caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs The Honble High Court For … on 30 November, 2021Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOS. 1729-1736 OF 2021
IN

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

Versus

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT FOR JUDICATURE
OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. …Respondents

WITH

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION D.NO. 25663/2021

IN

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.)

ORDER
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
Date: 2021.12.11
19:09:03 IST
Reason:

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
2

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

implemented.

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
3

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
4

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

Sessions Judges.

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.
5

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

dated 31.3.2011.

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.

……………………………….J.
[Uday Umesh Lalit]

……………………………….J.
[Vineet Saran]
New Delhi;
30th November, 2021.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.