Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ratan Lal Agarwal vs High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan ... on 1 May, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)WLN630
JUDGMENT R.S. Kejriwal, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed that a writ of mandamus or direction be issued to the respondents to grant him selection scale with effect from 13.7.1988, the date when his junior Mr.Atul Kumar Jain was granted the same and the Senior Scale with effect from 13.8.1987 to 12.7.1988. The petitioner has further prayed that he should be declared senior to the respondent Nos.3 to 8. He has also prayed that adverse remarks in his A.C.R. for the year 1990 and confidential letters dated 3.12.1992 and 12.3.1993, communicated to him be quashed and the respondent No. 1 be directed to promote him in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service from the date when his juniors were promoted without considering the adverse remarks as contained in letter dated 5.9.1992, marked Annexure 15. The petitioner be granted all consequential benefits including the salary, allowance with interest thereon.
2. The brief facts of this writ petition are as below:The petitioner joined Rajasthan Judicial Service (R.J.S.) w.e.f. 4.12.1976. vide order dated 13.7.1988, he was promoted on the post of Civil Judge cum-A.C.J.M.under Rule 7-C of the R.J.S. Rules 1955, on the basis of merit after taking his seniority into consideration. The State Government vide its order No. F.l(1)Karmik/Ka-IV-87 dated 31.10.1988, granted scales of pay to the members of R.J.S. as are applicable to the R.A.S. Officers of the State as mentioned in the order. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent No. 1 constituted a Screening Committee of five Judges to finalise the list of officers for granting various scales of pay. In the meantime, the petitioner received a letter dated 8.9.1989 (Ex.3), conveying to the petitioner regarding withholding of his Integrity certificate for the period from 2.5.1983 to 14.12.1983. The petitioner submitted a representation against the said communication. The respondent No. 1, after considering the said representation of the petitioner expunged the adverse remarks and informed of the same to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.3.1990 (Ex.5), but this letter was not produced before the Screening Committee and on account of that, the petitioner was not given Selection Scale. The respondent No. 1, vide its orders dated 19.5.1990 (Ex.7 to Ex.10), granted super time, selection and senior scales to the R.J.S. Officers, including those officers who were junior to the petitioner and were not even eligible but did not grant even senior scale to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner vide his representation dated 29.6.1990, requested the respondent No. 1, for granting him Selection Scale. It has been further mentioned in the Writ Petition that the respondent No. 1 vide its letter No. ACR/R/90'/636 dated 5.9.1992 (Ex.15), communicated the following adverse remarks for the year 1990.
He has a tendency to mix freely with public, which should be curbed. Integrity controversial. A bad officer.
3. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation against the said adverse remarks which was rejected by the respondent No. 1, vide Its letter dated 3.12.1992 (Ex.17), in arbitrary and casual manner. The petitioner submitted a Review Application, which was also rejected vide order dated 12.3.1993 (Ex.19), in the same manner. The petitioner challenged the said adverse remarks, the rejection of his representation and Review Application on the ground that the same are arbitrary and malafide.
4. The respondent No. 1, in Its written reply denied the allegations of the petitioner. The Additional Registrar (Writs), also produced the original record concerning the petitioner as directed.
5. First submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 31.10.1988, marked Annexure 2 four scales of pay viz. Ordinary, Senior, Selection and Supertime, were allowed to the R.J.S. Officers. Out of the 58 total cadre posts of A.C.J.Ms. 33 posts were made available for Selection Scale of pay and the remaining 25 posts were made available in the Senior Scale of pay. His submission is that all the A.C.J.Ms were allowed either Senior Scale of Pay or Selection Scale of Pay. The petitioner was promoted on the post of A.C.J.M. vide order dated 13.7.1988, and under these circumstances, he was entitled to Senior Scale of pay from the date of that order but he was not allowed the same scale of pay in arbitrary way. His next contention is that the Junior-Persons to the petitioner were granted Selection Scales vide order dated 19.5.1990, but the petitioner was denied the same on account of adverse remarks in his A.C.Rs. for the year 1983, which were expunged vide letter dated 5.3.1990 marked Ex.5. Under these circumstances the petitioner is entitled to grant of Selection Scale from the date when his juniors were granted Selection Scale.
6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the Screening Committee did not find the petitioner eligible for the grant of Selection Scale. Under these circumstances the petitioner was not granted Selection Scale. During arguments, counsel for the respondent No. 1 stated that the petitioner was granted Senior Scale, but no such order has been produced before me. From the list of the Officers to whom senior scale was granted (marked Annexure 10), name of petitioner is missing.
7. According to the Government Order dated 31.10.1988, every A.C.J.M. should be granted either Senior Scale or the Selection Scale. The petitioner automatically became entitled for Senior Scale when he was promoted on the post of A.C.J.M. From the orders dated 19.5.1990, marked Annexures 7 and 8, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were granted Selection Scale on the basis of merit. From the order dated 19.5.1990, marked Annexure 9, it is apparent that the respondent No. 8 Shri Usman Ali Khan was granted Selection Scale on the basis of Seniority-Cum-Merit. Shri Usman All Khan is junior to the petitioner as is apparent from the Seniority List marked Annexure 11. Name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 56, whereas the name of Shri Usman Ali Khan is at Serial No. 76. From the report of the Screening Committee and also from the minutes of the Full Court, it does not transpire as to on what ground the petitioner was denied Selection Scale. Neither the Screening Committee nor the Full Court gave any reason for the same. It appears that the Screening Committee and also the Full Court were misled from the original annual performance appraisal' report of the petitioner for the year 1983, in which the integrity of the petitioner was shown to be doubtful. This adverse entry was expunged vide letter dated 5.3.1990, marked Annexure 5, but there is no endorsement to this effect on the A.P.A.R. of the petitioner. On account of this, the petitioner was not granted Selection Scale while his juniors (respondent Nos. 3 to 7) were granted Selection Scale on the basis of merit and the respondent No. 8 was granted Selection Scale on the basis of Seniority-Cum-Merit. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of Selection Scale with retrospective effect from the date the same was granted to his juniors deserves to be accepted with all consequential benefits.
8. The next submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the adverse remarks in his A.P.A.R. for the year 1990 are vague, without any basis and malaflde and deserves to be expunged. His submission is that from 1.1.1990 to 5,6.1990, the petitioner worked as Addl.Civil Judge-cum-A.C.J.M. No. 2, Ajmer, and at that time Shri Nag Raj Mehta was District Judge, Ajmer. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Jaipur. From 7.6.1990 to 31.12.1990, the petitioner worked as Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate at Jaipur City, Jaipur, and during this period Shri J.P.Bansal was District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. There was no complaint against the petitioner during 1990 or thereafter either from the members of Bar Association of Ajmer or Jaipur or from any other comer. The judgments delivered by the petitioner in Civil and Criminal cases were not rated below standard but were found to be of standard. The Inspecting Judge or the Hon. Chief Justice never made any inspection of the Court of the petitioner during the year 1990. Neither the District Judge nor the Inspecting Judge or the Hon. Chief Justice ever brought to the notice of the petitioner about any complaint against him nor the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation regarding any thing done by him as a Judicial Officer when he was posted at Ajmer. The remarks were conveyed after a long delay after he was superceded. These remarks were given by Shri Nag Raj Mehta, the then District Judge, Ajmer, who was biased against, the petitioner. The petitioner remained at Ajmer upto 30.5.1990 and thereafter he was transferred to Jaipur. The trouble started after the petitioner was transferred at Jaipur. Shri Nag Raj Mehta, at that time was constructing a house in vaishali at Jaipur, He called upon the petitioner and asked him to get his house regularised from J.D.A. Jaipur, which was constructed by him contrary to J.D.A. Rules. But the petitioner expressed his inability to get the house of Shri Mehta regularised as he was not in a position to do the aforesaid work. Under these circumstances, Shri Nag Raj Mehta was biased against him and he gave adverse remarks.
9. Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to his transfer to Jaipur, Shri Nag Raj Mehta had full confidence in the petitioner. He entrusted him the most confidential work of surprise inspection on his behalf of the Courts of M.J.M. Nasirabad and Kekri and also provided pool jeep to him on 28.5.1990, only two days before the petitioner was transferred to Jaipur. Not only this, the petitioner was nominated as a member of Screening Committee to consider the cases of promotion of Senior Personal Assistants. He submits that had there been any complaint regarding his integrity, the integrity certificate should not have been issued to him. Not only this, the petitioner should not have been assigned the most confidential work of inspection of the Courts of M.J.M. Nasirabad and Kekri, on 28.5.1990, only few days before his transfer. The remarks were given by Shri Nag Raj Mehta, District Judge, Ajmer, when he expressed his inability in getting his house regularised, which was constructed contrary to J.D.A. Rules. He submits that Rule 345 of the General Rules (Civil) provides for writing of Annual Confidential Remarks about Subordinate Judicial Officers by the District Judges. Return No. 30 has been prescribed for it. The respondent No. 1 issued circular dated 30.8.1989, giving directions to the Reporting Officers with regard to Annual Confidential remarks about Subordinate Judicial Officers. According to the circular, the Reporting Officers were advised to avoid hasty opinions based on insufficient data or heresy, but in the case of the petitioner, the circular was over-looked. The remarks given to the petitioner are based on no material but at the whim of Shri Mehta.
10. The remarks that the petitioner has tendency of mixing freely and is bad officer are vague, based on no material and are arbitrary and deserves to be expunged. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments passed in Mongol Chand Taylor v High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and others [1991 (1) RLR 143], vaidya Ganpatilal Harit v. State of Rajasthan, (1991 (1) WLC 178] Ram Avtar Khandelwal v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur through its Registrar, [1992 (2) WLC 587] Tek Chand v. H.C.J.R.at Jodhpur [RLR 1993 (2) 91] and M.S.Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. [1982 LAB. IC 619 (AP)].
11. Counsel for the petitioner next submits that against the adverse remarks, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation which was not considered by the respondent No. 1 fairly and objectively and was rejected in arbitrary way by non- speaking order. Against the rejection of his representation, the petitioner also submitted a Review Application, which was also rejected in arbitrary way by non-speaking order. The rejection of representation and of review application is against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.
12. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on Kartar Singh v Delhi Administration (Delhi) [1974 SLWR 1539] Kumar Shrilekha vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. and Others Union of India and others v. E.G. Nambudiri and Tek Chand v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (supra).
13. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner were on the basis of information received by the Reporting Officer, Inspecting Judge and the Hon'ble Chief Justice from time to time. It is not necessary that the complaint/information should be in wilting. On the basis of information received, the Reporting Officer and also the Inspecting Judge were satisfied that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful. The subjective satisfaction of the Inspecting Judge and the H.C.J. cannot be reviewed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Circular issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 30.8.1989 (Ex.14) does not apply to the Inspecting Judge and the H.C.J. No malice has been alleged against the Inspecting Judge and the H.C.J. and as such the adverse remarks given to the petitioner can not be quashed. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on M.P.Mittal v Rajasthan High Court and others. [RLR 1990 (2) 111]. He further submits that the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the adverse remarks given to the petitioner and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on All India Judges' Association and others v Union of India and others. . His further submission is that no direction can be given to the respondent No. 1 to give promotion to the petitioner in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shri Shrikant Chaphekar. Shri Narendra Jain, counsel for the respondent No. 3, supported the arguments of Shri Rastogi.
14. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments cited by them and also the original record produced before me by the counsel for the respondent No. 1. The following questions arise for consideration in the present writ petition.
1. Whether the adverse remarks given to the petitioner are arbitrary and malafide?.
2. Whether the respondent No. 1 is required to consider the representation of the petitioner fairly and objectively?.
3. Whether the respondent No. 1 considered the representation of the petitioner fairly and objectively?.
15. The adverse remarks given to the petitioner can be divided into three parts:
1. He has tendency of mixing freely, which should be curbed.
2. Integrity controversial.
3. He is a bad officer.
These remarks pertain to the period from 10,1.1990 to 30.5.1990, when the petitioner was posted as A.C.J.M. Ajmer, and at that time Shri Nagraj Mehta was District Judge Ajmer. He gave the following remarks to the petitioner:
Integrity of the Officer: Debatable. No complaint in writing.
General remarks: He has a tendency to mix freely with public, which should be curbed.
Below it, he gave the following integrity certificate:
Nothing can be said correctly on the integrity of Shri Ratan Lal.
The general reputation for honesty is good and I certify his integrity.
The learned Inspecting Judge gave the following remarks:
Integrity controversial. Needs to be watched under some strict Sessions Judge.
16. From 7.6.1990 to 31.12.1990, the petitioner remained under the judgeship of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who gave the following remarks to the petitioner:
(i) Integrity of the officer : Officer of integrity.
(ii) General remarks : Good and responsible officer.
(iii) the general reputation : of honesty was found to be good
and his integrity was certified.
17. The same Inspecting Judge put his signatures without any remarks. The Hon. Chief Justice gave following remarks:
Having take excess credit and at the cost of being remarked by Mr. Justice M.B. Sharma that he was controversial and needed to be watched, I find him to be a bad officer.
18. The first remark that the petitioner has tendency to mix freely with public which should be curbed was not endorsed by the Inspecting Judge and the Hon.Chief Justice.The remark regarding integrity controversial was endorsed by the Inspecting Judge. The Inspecting Judge further observed that the petitioner should be watched under some strict Sessions Judge. The third remark was given by the Hon.Chief Justice only on the basis of remark given by the Inspecting Judge that the integrity of the petitioner was controversial and needed to be watched. In the year 1991, another District Judge Shri Amar Singh Godara certified integrity of the petitioner since no complaint was received by him. The same Inspecting Judge agreed with the report of the Inspecting Judge and the Hon. Chief Justice gave the following remarks:
His disposal was 123% in the relevant year. Work found satisfactory Good Officer.
In the first half of 1992, another District Judge Shri Sunil Kumar Garg, certified his integrity. The petitioner was found to be a good officer. Another Inspecting Judge and the same Hon.Chief Justice endorsed the remarks given by the District Judge. In the second half of 1992, another District Judge Shri Amresh Kumar Singh certified the integrity of the petitioner. Another Inspecting Judge and the same Hon.Chief Justice endorsed the remarks of the District Judge. The remarks of Shri Mehta regarding the integrity of the petitioner are contradictory. On the one hand Shri Mehta has mentioned that the integrity of the petitioner was debatable. On the other hand, he certified his honesty and the integrity certificate was not withheld. Against the adverse remarks the petitioner submitted detailed representation, making serious allegations of malafide against Shri Mehta. It has been mentioned in the representation that Shri Mehta on 28.5.1990, assigned him the work of inspection of Courts of M.J.M. Kekri and Nasirabad, which is a most confidential work. Shri Mehta in his comments did not controvert this fact. This fact is established from the letter of Shri Mehta, dated 28 5.1990, marked Ex.17. Shri Mehta also did not deny the allegations of the petitioner that as the petitioner could not get the house of Shri Mehta regularised, which was constructed against the J.D.A.Rules, in vatshali, Jaipur, Shri Mehta was biased against him and gave the adverse remarks to him. When the petitioner was a man of integrity and responsible Officer upto 28.5.1990, would it be believable that he will become a bad officer or an officer of controversial integrity only within two days. (It is to be noted that the petitioner remained at Ajmer, upto 30.5.1990, and thereafter he was transferred to Jaipur). The remark that the petitioner has tendency of mixing freely given by Mr.Mehta was not endorsed by the Inspecting Judge and also by the Hon.Chief Justice. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner ever mixed with the public freely. In view of this, in my opinion the remarks given by Mr.Mehta are without any basis, arbitrary and malafide. The remarks of Inspecting Judge regarding integrity of the petitioner are also without any foundation. In its counter, the respondent No. 1 did not cite any instance to show that the integrity of the petitioner was controversial. If the Inspecting Judge had any information/complaint regarding controversial integrity of the petitioner, it was his duty to call his explanation. From the record produced before me by the counsel for the respondent No. 1, It does not appear that there was any complaint regarding the integrity of the petitioner. Further more the Inspecting Judge himself mentioned that the petitioner should be watched under some strict Sessions Judge, which shows that the Inspecting Judge himself was not sure regarding the controversial integrity of the petitioner. Later on, four senior most District Judges certified the integrity of the petitioner. Not only this, the same Inspecting Judge and the same Hon'ble Chief Justice certified the integrity of the petitioner.
19. The third remark that the petitioner is a bad officer was given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This remark is based only on the report of the Inspecting Judge. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner is a bad officer. Further more the remark is vague.
20. It is true that this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction should not sit as an appellate court over the remarks given by the Hon'ble Chief Justice but the Court cannot sit idle when it comes to the conclusion that the career of a Judicial Officer has been jeopardised on account of personal whims and disliking of reporting officer or of the Inspecting Judge or the H.C.J. It is undisputed that the adverse entry has very vital effect on the service career of an employee and cannot be treated lightly because the future career of a Government employee depends on it.
21. In Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and another the facts were that the petitioner-appellant was appointed on probation. The Full Court of the High Court in its meeting found that the work of the appellant was not satisfactory and as such his services were terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory during his probationary period and as such his services were rightly dispensed with. The appellant filed an appeal before the Apex Court. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner appellant that the principles of natural justice had been violated. The Apex Court without deciding the said question held as below:
We do not consider it necessary to deal with these rival submissions as in our opinion the High Court had no relevant material in coming to the conclusion that the appellant's work and conduct was not satisfactory during his probationary period.
This finding was recorded by the Apex Court after going through the record of the petitioner. The Apex Court in Para No. 14 of its judgment further held as below:
14. Under the Constitution the High Court has control over the subordinate judiciary. While exercising that control it is under a constitutional obligation to guide and protect judicial officers. An honest strict judicial officer is likely to have adversaries in the mofussil courts. If complaints are entertained on trifling matters relating to judicial orders which may have been upheld by the High Court on the judicial side no judicial officer would feel protected and it would be difficult for him to discharge his duties in an honest and independent manner. An independent and honest judiciary is a sine qua non for Rule of law. If judicial officers are under constant threat of complaint and enquiry on trifling matters and if High Court encourages anonymous complaints to hold the field the subordinate judiciary will not be able to administer justice in an independent and honest manner. It is, therefore, imperative that the High Court should also take steps to protect its honest officers ignoring ill-conceived or motivated complaints made by the unscrupulous lawyers and litigants.
22. The Apex Court was of the view that it is the duty of the High Court to protect, its honest officers from motivated complaints.
23. In the present case, there is no complaint from any corner regarding the integrity of the petitioner. The petitioner joined service in the year 1976 and period of more than 18 years has already been passed. No material has been produced before me regarding controversial integrity of the petitioner. In view of this, I have no hesitation to say that the adverse remarks given to the petitioner are without any foundation and are arbitrary.
24. As I have decided question No. 1 on the basis of record of the case and the personal file of the petitioner produced before me by counsel for the respondent No. 1, hence the judgments cited by counsel for the parties are not discussed.
25. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab and others the Apex Court held as below:
The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in a confidential roll cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned so that he has an opportunity to improve his work and conduct or to explain the circumstances leading to the report. Such an opportunity is not an empty formality, its object, partially, being to enable the superior authorities to decide on a consideration of the explanation offered by the person concerned, whether the adverse report is justified.
26. In Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa and another [AIR 1989 SC 3218] the Apex Court held as under:
The purpose of communicating adverse entries to the Government servant is to inform him regarding his deficiency in work and conduct and to afford him an opportunity to make, amend, and improvement in his work and further if the entries are not justified the communication affords him an opportunity to improve his work and conduct and also to make representation in the event of the entry being unjustified.
27. In Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another , the Apex Court held as under:
The law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceedings, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.
28. In Union of India v. E.G.Nambudiri the Apex Court held that in the absence of any statutory rule or statutory instructions requiring the competent authority to record reasons in rejecting a representation made by a Government servant against the adverse entries, the competent authority is not under any obligation to record reasons. But the competent authority has no licence to act arbitrarily, he must act in a fair and just manner. (Emphasis supplied). He is required to consider the questions raised by the Government Servant and examine the same in the light of the comments made by the officer awarding the adverse entries and the officer counter- signing the same. It has been further held that if the representation is rejected after its consideration in a fair and just manner, the order of rejection would not be rendered illegal merely on the ground of absence of reasons. The Apex Court further held that no order of an administrative authority communicating its decision is rendered illegal on the ground of absence of reasons facie and it is not open to the court to interfere with such orders merely on the ground of absence of any reasons. However, it does not mean that the administrative authority is at liberty to pass orders without there being any reasons for the same. In governmental functioning before any order is issued the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes on the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion. The Apex Court further held that if such an order is challenged in a court of law it is always open to the competent authority to place the reasons before the court which may have led to the rejection of the representation. It is always open to an administrative authority to produce evidence aliunde before the court to justify its action.
29. From all these decisions of the Apex Court, the only conclusion comes is that the Government Servant has a right to make representation against the adverse entries if he is of the view that the entries are unjustified. In case representation is made, the competent authority is under an obligation to consider the same fairly and objectively after inviting comments of the concerned officers who have passed the remarks and then to decide the same.
30. In his representation the petitioner has tried to justify that his integrity was never debatable or controversial as the reporting officer himself vide his letter dated 28.5.1990 (only two days before his transfer), asked him to make inspection of the Courts of M.J.M. Kekri and Nasirabad, on 29th May, 1990, and further assigned him other important work, which shows that the integrity of the petitioner was never debatable and that the reporting officer gave adverse remarks on account of personal bias. The reporting officer i.e, the then District Judge, Ajrner, Shri Nag Raj Mehta did not controvert the allegations of the petitioner. The Inspecting Judge also did not cite any instance regarding controversial integrity of the petitioner. There is neither any complaint nor any noting in the file of the petitioner to show that the integrity of the petitioner was controversial. No reasons have been placed before me on account of which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. In his comments, the Inspecting Judge has mentioned that on the basis of image and reputation of the petitioner as a Judl. Officer as was observed by him, the remarks could not be changed. On the basis of comments of Inspecting Judge, the Hon.Chief Justice rejected the representation of the petitioner. This shows that the Inspecting Judge and also the Hon. Chief Justice did not consider the representation of the petitioner fairly and objectively but rejected the same on the basis of their personal disliking and whims in arbitrary way.
31. Consequently, I allow the writ petition, expunge the adverse remarks conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 5.9.1992 (Annexure 15), the order dated 3.12.1992 (Annexure 17), by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and the order dated 12.3.1993 (marked Annexure 19), by which the Review Application was rejected are set-aside and the respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in R.H.J.S. Cadre as early as possible and in case the petitioner is found fit. for the said cadre, he should be promoted retrospectively from the date his juniors were promoted in Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Cadre with all consequential benefits including seniority.
32. Before parting with the judgment, I want to observe that as the petitioner has been denied Senior Scale and Selection Scale and has been put to harassment and humiliation for a long time on account of inaction/negligence of the Registry, I deem it proper to direct the respondent No. 1 to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility of officer/official. The respondent No. 1 is further directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- of this petition to the petitioner and the same be recovered from the officer/official, who is found negligent in the enquiry.