# REGISTRAR M.P. !UGH COURT v. B. A. NIGAM

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 878
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 624 of 1972
- **Bench:** G. Palekar, A. Alagiriswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/registrar-m-p-ugh-court-v-b-a-nigam-6567
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958-Service Rules-Experience
a.r Civil Judge, Class.J, necessary qualification for promotion to the poM
of Addi. District f.'nd Sessions Judge, and not the seniority.
The Respondent No. I, who was a Civil Judge in former Madhya
Bharat, was, on absorption into Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, treated
a' Civ;l Judge, Class-II. The relevant Service Rules applicable to the
Civil Judges recognised Civil Judges as only one Class but the M. P.
Civil Courts Act,
1958,
mentioned
two
classes of Civil
Judges
namely,
Civil
Judges
Class I
and
Civil
Judges
Class
II.
From the t;me when the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 C8llle
into fOrce it was always considered by the High Court that for promotion
to the post of Addi. District and Sessions Judge, it was a necessary
qualification that the Civil Judge must have sonie experM:nce of working
as Civil Judge, Chlss-1. Under the Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of
the Civil Judge, Class I was Rs. 10,000/- while that of Civil Judge.
Class II was Rs. 5,000/-.
In May 1968, the High Court passed
as
Reso1utio,o laying down that the seledtion of a Civil Judge, Class-II, as·
a Civil Judge Class I shall be deemed '" promotion and ·that being so,.
only the cases of Civil Judges, Class-I, shall be considered for promotion
:ls Addl. Drntrict and Sessions Judges in order of their seniority. The
respondent was not found fit for promotion to the post of Civil Judge,
Class-I in the successive selections.
He was finally 'found fit in 1968.
In a writ petition before the M. P. High Court, the Respondent No. 1
contended that the date of the seniority should count from the date of
appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cfass-IJ and not from the date
of promotion to the post of Civil Judge, Class-I. He also contended
that the High Court Resolutio:t> of May 3, 1968, was illegal as there
was no provi~ion in the Service Rules for classifying Civil
Judges
as
Class I or Ciass II and the power to create various classes of services
\V'&S vested ir.. the Government, and not in the High Court. The 11. P.
High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Allowing the State's appeal by certificate,
HELD : ( 1) On perusal of the High Court file regarding the selection
of Class JI Civil Judges as Class I Civil Judges, it is clear that the
decisions \Vere bona fide a;'nd on merits.
The Respondent No. 1 had
no claim to Class I post before 1968, when for the first time ·he was
found fit.
Once it is found that experience as Civil Judge Class I is a
necessary qualification, the seniority in Class II service ·is of no consequence.
( 2) While it is true that the Service Rules do not provide for any
distinction within Civil Judges, the difference in· the pecuniary jurisdici; _,n cannot be ignored. The Resolution of the High Court of May 1968
should not be interpreted literally.
The resolution does· not create a new
class of Ci,il Judges called Class I Civil Judges but merely lays down
the c:ualification or standard of fitness for higher promotion.
There is
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
REGISTRAR M.P. !UGH COURT v. B. A. N!GAM
879
(Alagiriswami, J.)
no justification for re-opening cases closed for more than ten years at
the instance of an officer whose record of service was not a shining one:
compared to those who were selected earlier. [880A, 881G]

## Text

878
REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
JI.
B. A. NIGAM AND OTHERS
April 3, 1973
[0, G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ,]
Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958-Service Rules-Experience
a.r Civil Judge, Class.J, necessary qualification for promotion to the poM
of Addi. District f.'nd Sessions Judge, and not the seniority.
The Respondent No. I, who was a Civil Judge in former Madhya
Bharat, was, on absorption into Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service, treated
a' Civ;l Judge, Class-II. The relevant Service Rules applicable to the
Civil Judges recognised Civil Judges as only one Class but the M. P.
Civil Courts Act,
1958,
mentioned
two
classes of Civil
Judges
namely,
Civil
Judges
Class I
and
Civil
Judges
Class
II.
From the t;me when the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 C8llle
into fOrce it was always considered by the High Court that for promotion
to the post of Addi. District and Sessions Judge, it was a necessary
qualification that the Civil Judge must have sonie experM:nce of working
as Civil Judge, Chlss-1. Under the Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of
the Civil Judge, Class I was Rs. 10,000/- while that of Civil Judge.
Class II was Rs. 5,000/-.
In May 1968, the High Court passed
as
Reso1utio,o laying down that the seledtion of a Civil Judge, Class-II, as·
a Civil Judge Class I shall be deemed '" promotion and ·that being so,.
only the cases of Civil Judges, Class-I, shall be considered for promotion
:ls Addl. Drntrict and Sessions Judges in order of their seniority. The
respondent was not found fit for promotion to the post of Civil Judge,
Class-I in the successive selections.
He was finally 'found fit in 1968.
In a writ petition before the M. P. High Court, the Respondent No. 1
contended that the date of the seniority should count from the date of
appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cfass-IJ and not from the date
of promotion to the post of Civil Judge, Class-I. He also contended
that the High Court Resolutio:t> of May 3, 1968, was illegal as there
was no provi~ion in the Service Rules for classifying Civil
Judges
as
Class I or Ciass II and the power to create various classes of services
\V'&S vested ir.. the Government, and not in the High Court. The 11. P.
High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Allowing the State's appeal by certificate,
HELD : ( 1) On perusal of the High Court file regarding the selection
of Class JI Civil Judges as Class I Civil Judges, it is clear that the
decisions \Vere bona fide a;'nd on merits.
The Respondent No. 1 had
no claim to Class I post before 1968, when for the first time ·he was
found fit.
Once it is found that experience as Civil Judge Class I is a
necessary qualification, the seniority in Class II service ·is of no consequence.
( 2) While it is true that the Service Rules do not provide for any
distinction within Civil Judges, the difference in· the pecuniary jurisdici; _,n cannot be ignored. The Resolution of the High Court of May 1968
should not be interpreted literally.
The resolution does· not create a new
class of Ci,il Judges called Class I Civil Judges but merely lays down
the c:ualification or standard of fitness for higher promotion.
There is
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
REGISTRAR M.P. !UGH COURT v. B. A. N!GAM
879
(Alagiriswami, J.)
no justification for re-opening cases closed for more than ten years at
the instance of an officer whose record of service was not a shining one:
compared to those who were selected earlier. [880A, 881G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 624 of
1972.
Appeal by certifica'le from the Judgment and order dated
August 8, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh :ltigh Court at Jabalpur
in Misc. Petition No. 537 of 1969.
I. N. Shroff, for the Appellants.
M. N. Phadke, Anthoney G. Menezes, P. G. Bhartari, I. B.
Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur & Ravinder Narain, for respondent
No. 1
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-In the Judicial Service of Madhya Pradesh
there are three classes of officers, Civil Judges, Additional District
and Sessions Judges and District Judges but under the Madhya
Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 there are four classes of Civil
Courts, the Coutt of the District Judge, the Court of the Addi.
District Judge, the Court of the Civil Judge (Class I) and the
Court of the Civil Judge (Class II). The respondent No. I, Shri
B. A. Nigam, entered service as a Civil Judge on 20-lG-1956 in
Madhya Bharat. After Madhya Bharat became part of. Madhya
Pradesh he was absorbed as a Civil Judge and placed for purposes
of seniority at No. 189. From the time when the Madhya ?radesh
Civil Court Act, 1958 came into force some period of service of
a Civil Judge during which he exercised powers of Civil Judge,
Class I, however, small, was considered a necessary qualification
for promotion to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
On or about May 3, 1968, by a resolution of the High Court it
was laid down that selection of a Civil Judge, Class II, as a Civil
Judge, Class I, shall be deemed as promotion and that being so,
only the cases ol Civil Judges, Class I, shall be considered for
promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judges in order of
their seniority. It must be made clear at the outset that according
to the Service Rules there is only one class of Civil Judges and
not t\vo classes of Civil Judges (Class I) and Civil Judges (Class
II).
The fitness of the respQndent ( 1) for promotion as Civil
Judge, Class I, seems to have been considered on a number of
occasions i.e. on May 3, 1966, August 12, 1966, April 17, 1967,
November 6, 1967 and April 18, 1968 and on each of these
occasions he was not found fit to exercise powers of a Civil Judge,
Class I. Mr. I. N. Shroff appearing for the appellants has also
shown us the file containing the proceedings of the Judges' meetings of the High Court of Madhya P'radesh on the various dates
abo_ve referred to in which the names of various officers for being
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C,R.
poS'led as Class I Civil Judges have been considered.
We have
~crutinised them carefully and can see no reason to doubt the
bona fide nature of the decisions therein· made. The High Court
has also taken the view that though the junior members in the
cadre of Civil Judges had often been allowed to
exercise the
powers of Civil Judge, Class I, without considering at that time
the respondent's claim and then those junior members had been
preferred for promotion on the ground that they had exercised
such powers, and such preference was open to attack as being
violative ol the fundamental rights of the respondent, they could
not assist him on that ground because even if his .claims for exercising the powers of Civil Judge, Class I had been considered at
the appropriate time, he would not have been found fit for the
purpose for the reason earlier mentioned.
While it is not impossible that if the respondell'l's case had been compared with
that of others before the 3rd May, 1966 he might have been
found fit for being posted as a Civil Judge, Class I, it is very improbable and we, therefore, agree with this conclusion or the High
Court. Finally, on 30-11-1968 the respondent was found fit to
be posted as a Civil Judge, Class I and he filed the petitioo, out
of which this appeal arises, for consideration of his name for
being promoted as an Additional District and Sessions Judge over
the heads of all the people who had been earlier found to have
better qualifications for being posted as Civil Judges, Class I in
preference to him.
That petition having been allowed
by the
High Court his appeal has been filed by certificate by the Registrar
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the State against the
judgment of that High Court.
In addition to the point which we have earlier mentioned and
agreed with the High Court, his only other contention was that
in the list of Civil Judges he was senior to all of them and as there
was no provision in the service rules for classifying Civil Judges
as Class I or Class Il and the power to create various classes of
services was one which vested with the Government and not with
the Hi~h Court therefore the resolution of the High Court of May
3, 1968 cannot affect him adversely. The High Court took the
view that as for some years past, a principle for selection had
been introduced that before a Civil Judge was promoted to the
post of an Additional Districit and Sessions Judge, it was essential
that he should have exercised the powers of Civil Judge, Class I,
tor a period, however short and that principle had a rational relation to the suitability of Civil Judges for promotion to posts of
Additional District and Sessions Judges and the respondent No. I
could not legitimately complain, as he did not have that qualification, and he could not be selected for promotion only on the basis
of seniority. They also took the view that sinee the respondent
No. I had not acquired the qualification required for promotion,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
REGISTRAR M.P. HIGH COURT v. B. A. N!GAM
881
(Alagiriswami, I.)
!tis claim for such promotion should be regarded as having been
considered and rejected by implication till November 30, 1968
when he was allowed to exercise the powers of Civil Judge, Class I.
Having held rightly, according to us, that till November 30, 1968
the respondent No. I was not qualified to be considered for promotion as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, the High
Court curiously enough issued a writ of mandamus directing that
the respondent's claim for promotion should be considered in
relation to the claims of !tis juniors and if he was found fit he
should be allowed the consequential benefits including fixing of
seniority in the cadre of Additional District and Sessions Judges.
In mentioning· about the juniors o.f the respondent No. I the
learned Judges were referring to the original seniority in the cadre
of Civil Judges,
Once it is found.that experience as Civil Judge, Class I, at
least for a short period, is a necessary qualification for promotion
as Additional District and Sessions Judge and that such a require·
ment has a rational relation to the que!ltion at issue, it would b
surprising to hold that a man, who again and again had beei
found unfit to be posted as Civil Judge, Class I, in comparison
with others, who ,were his juniors in service, his claim for promotion as Additional District and Sessions Judge should be decided
not on the basis of the date on whlch he was found fit to exercise
the powers of Civil Judge, Class I, but on the basis of the date
of his entry into service. Out of the 41 people whom the respon·
dent No. I had made respondents to his petition, 10 people were
found fit in 1962 and one in 1963. Then we have 3 others whose
claims were considered on 3-5-66 alongwith that of the respondent No. I and found superior to his. There are 8 others whose
claims were compared to the respondent's on 12-8-66 and found
to be superior to his. Seventeen others, whose claims were compared to the respondent's on 17-4-67 were found to be superior
to the respondent's and two were found superior to the respondent
on 7-11-67. It would, therefore, be most surprising that a man
who in comparison to all these people was not found fit to be
promoted as Civil Judge, Class I, should as soon as he was found
fit on 30-11-68 go over the heads of all the other who were found
superior to him on a number of earlier occasions. While it is
true that the Service Rules do not provide for Civil Judges being
classed as Class I Civil Judges and Class II Civil Judges, we
cannot ignore the fact that the jurisdiction of the Class II Civil
Judges is onlv upto Rs. 5,000 and that of. Class I Civil Judges
upto Rs. 10,000. The resolution of the High Court of May 1963
should not be interoreted literally.
If it is done in its proper
background it would be aooreciated that what was done was not
to create a new class of Civil Judges called Class I Civil Judges
but to have a list of persons who were qualified to be posted as
882
SIJPREME COIJRT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
Class I Civil Judges and to provide that fitness for being posted
as Class I Civil Judges and acting as such for some lime should
~
consid~red as a qualification for promotion as Additional Distr~ and Sessions Judges. We have already Pointed out that the
High Court has rigbtly held that such a provision cannot be said
·to be irrelevant to the question of promotion from among the
Civil Judges to Additional District and Sessions Judges.
We 2re
firmly of opinion that in the face of these circumS'lances to allow
the respondent No. I to be considered for promotion as Additional
District and Sessions Judge in preference to others who had been
found. better qualified to be posted as Civil Judges Class I much
earlier merely on the basis of the date of his entry into service
would. be a mockery of all canons of fair play and justice. Indeed,
we cannot help feeling that his being found fit for promotion to
Class I Civil Judge on 30-11-68 seems to have been done more
as a matter of grace and he should be more than happy to have
got what he got. The fact that before 3-5-66 there might have
been cases of Civil Judges being posted as Presiding Judges of Civil
Courts Class I due to various exigencies of service cannot in any
case affect the merits of this case. As we have already indicated,
while it is not impossible it is improbable that compared to those
people who had been posted as Class I Civil Judges before 3-5-66
the respondent No. I would have been found better qualified.
At
any rate we can see no justification for reopening cases that had
been closed more than 10 years ago at the instance of an officer
whose record of service to say the least, is not shining one. We
see no merits in his claim. We, therefore, allow the appeal and
set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. There
will, however, be no order as to costs.
S.B.W.
Appeal aNowed.
B
c
D