Dismissed¶51

Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Supreme Court31 Aug 19791979 INSC 164 · [1980] 1 S.C.R. 4561979 INSC 164

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bihar subordinate judiciary; supersession for promotion as Additional District Judge; Article 16 of the Constitution - consideration of eligible employees before promotion; Article 14 - no discrimination where candidates not similarly situate/of equal merit; High Court as best judge of performance and suitability of its officers; plea of malice not taken in petition or proved by affidavit - cannot be noticed by the Supreme Court; Governor of Bihar accepting High Court recommendation; writ petition under Article 32; future/reserved vacancy and consideration upon improvement; petition dismissed, no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

All that Article 16 requires is that the case of employees similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before others are promoted. ¶37

Rameshwar Prasad versus State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1980)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the supersession of the petitioner for promotion as Additional District Judge, despite his alleged unblemished judicial career, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

All that Article 16 requires is that the case of employees similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before others are promoted.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Article 16 was not violated because the petitioner's case for promotion was fully considered by the High Court and the Government, and it was then decided not to promote him.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the High Court is the best judge of the performance of its officers and was not satisfied about the petitioner's suitability having regard to his past record, Article 16 is not attracted and this Court would not interfere at this stage.ratio¶49
The petitioner and the other Sub-Judges not being similarly situate as being of equal merit, the question of discrimination or infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution does not arise.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1978, decided August 31, 1979 (Fazal Ali, J.; Kailasam and Sen, JJ.). Writ petition under Article 32 by a Bihar Sub-Judge challenging the Governor of Bihar's acceptance of the High Court's recommendation superseding him for promotion as Additional District Judge. Dismissing the petition, the Court held: (i) Article 16 requires only that the case of similarly situated, eligible employees be considered before others are promoted; the petitioner's case was fully considered by the High Court and the Government, which decided not to promote him, so Article 16 was not infringed; (ii) the High Court being the best judge of the performance of its officers and not satisfied about the petitioner's suitability having regard to his past record, Article 16 is not attracted and the Court would not interfere; (iii) the petitioner and other Sub-Judges not being of equal merit, no question of discrimination under Article 14 arises; (iv) an allegation of malice neither pleaded in the petition nor proved by affidavit cannot be noticed. The Court observed that the High Court may consider the petitioner for future vacancies if he shows improvement.

456

RAMESHW AR PRASAD

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

¶6

August 31, 1979

¶7

•

¶8

[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]

¶9

Supersession for promotion as Additional District Judge-Challenge under Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16-When can arise.

¶10

MaUc~Plea of malice not taken or 1nade out in the Petition cannot be 'taken notice of when argued.

¶11

¶12

¶13

The petitioner challenged the order of the High Court recommending his supersession by promoting other Sub-judges as Additional District Judges, and also the acc'eptance thereof by the Government, on the ground that his judicial career was without any blemish and therefore, the impugned orders were in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that there was a colour .Jf malice in the recomm'endation by the High Court.

¶14

Dismissing the petition, the Court

¶15

HELD : 1. All that Artide 16 requires is that the case of the employees similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before others are promoted. The petitioner must establish that his case was not considered at all and persons junior to him were promoted without ony reason. [457D-E]

¶16

¶17

In this case, Article 16 is not violated as his case for promotion was fully considered bY the High Court and the Government and then it was decided not to promote him. At any rate, since the High Court is the best judge of the performance of its officers and if th'e High Court was not satisfied about the suitability of the Petitioner having regard to his past record, for promotion Art. 16 is not attracted and this Court would not, therefore interfere at this •tage. [457B-C, 458A-Bl

¶18

(I'

¶19

(b) The petitioner and other Sub-judges not being similarly situate as being of equal merit the question of discrimination or infraction of Article 14 of the Con•titution also does not arise. [457H, 458ABJ

¶20

¶21

Supreme Corirt cannot take notice of a1legation of malice as an argument when no such plea has 11een taken in the petition or proved in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. [458B]

¶22

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1978.

¶23

Under Article 32 of the Constitution.

¶24

Sarjoo Prasad, (Dr.) Y. S. Chitale and M. L. Verma · for the Petitioner.

¶25

¶26

U. P. SinKh and S. N. Iha for Respondent No. 1.

¶27

S. V. Gupte and B. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2.

¶28

RAMESHWAR v. BIHAR (Fazal Ali, !.)

457

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

.--J . • \

•

• •

•

FAZAL ALI, J. This petition under Article 32 has been filed against the order of the Governor of Bihar accepting recommendations of the High Court and superseding the petitioner Rameshwar Prasad by promoting other subordinate Judges as Additional District Judge, Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing in support of the petitioner mainly raised two points before us. In the· first place it was contended that the judicial career of the petitioner was without any blemish and there was nothing against hlm to justify his supersession when the High Court recommended the case of promotion of the Sub-Judges for appointment as Additional District Judge and hence the order impugned is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. There is, however, abundant material on the record to show that the case of the petitioner was fully considered by the High Court and he was not considered fit for promotion by the High Court, hence his case was not recommended for promotion as Additional District Judge. In this view of the matter it is manifest that Article 16 cannot be violated because the petitioner's case for promotion was fully considered by the High Court and the Government and then it was decided not to promote him. All that Art. 16 requires is that the case of employees similarly situate and eligible for promotion must be considered before others are promoted. If it was established that the petitioner's case was not considered at all and persons junior to him were promoted without any reason, then something could be said in support of the petitioner's case. It would appear from the affidavit filed by the High Court that the Government considered the ca~e of the petitioner. The aver:nent in para 14 of the affidavit filed by the High Court runs :

¶38

"It is incorrect to say that there was any departure from any common usual practice in sending the second proposal though final orders on the first proposal were not passed by the State Government specially in the context that at the time of sending the second proposal this Respondent came to a definite conclusion that the work and conduct of the petitioner was such that he should not be recommended for promotion unless he showed improvement in hls conduct."

¶39

Further more at page 85 of Annexure I it is clearly mentioned that the Court has recommended the case of other Sub-Judges after considering the case of the concerned appellant Mr. Rameshwar Prasad and it is also established that the Government concurred with the recommendation of the High Court. Although Mr. Prasad submitted that the petitioner had an unblemished career, there are enongh materials on the record to show that this is not correct. Thus the petitioner and

458

(1980] l s.c.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶49

other Sub-Judges not being similarly situate as being of equal merit the question of discrimination or infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution also does not arise. At any rate, since the High Court is the best Judge of the performance of its Officers and if the High Court was ·not satisfied about the suitability of the petitioner having regard to his past record, for promotion, Art. 16 is not attracted and this Court would not, therefore, interfere at this stage. Secondly, it was faintly suggested that there was a colour of malice in the recommendation by the High Court but no such clear plea has been taken in the petition or proved in the allidavit filed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, we cannot take any notice of such an allegation. For these reasons, we find no merit in this petition. We would, however, like to observe that the High Court itself was of the opinion that in case the petitioner improves his merit and ability, he may be considered for promotion and· for this purpose one vacancy was kept reserved. Although this vacancy has since been filled up, yet if in future there is any vacancy, the High Court may consider his case for promotion, if be shows improvement and progress.

¶50

, , " " ' h I ..

¶51

The application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs .

¶52

. S.R.. Petition dismissed.

¶53

•

Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. R. Luthra versus Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Rohtas versus State of Haryana & Another

State of Tamil Nadu versus v. Krishnnaswami Naidu & Anr.

Shanti Vijay & Co. etc. versus Princess Fatima Fouzia & Ors. etc.

Pratap Singh versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.

Ramesh Chand etc. etc. versus State of U.P. and Others