SC dismisses judicial officer's plea

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain rules and resolutions of Delhi high Court on criteria for appointment of a judicial officer to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge.

Dismissing the appeal of Additional District and Sessions Judge Sujata Kohli, the top court said that the grading of an individual officer remains a matter between the officer and the establishment and any other officer cannot claim to be informed about the grading of any other officer as a matter of right.

A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari concluded that it cannot be said that the High Court has caused any prejudice to the appellant in the matter of ACR gradings.

The top court said that from the material placed on record, it appears that the appellant never challenged her gradings for any year except that for the year 2011 when she requested for upgradation of her ACR grading from B' to B+' or A'; and the High Court, acceding to her request, upgraded her ACR to B+'.

"Having regard to the circumstances of this case, we are impelled to observe that while raising grievance with regard to the impact and effect of ACR gradings, the appellant appears to have missed out the fundamental factor that for the promotions in question, an individual's minimum merit, by itself, was not going to be decisive; but the relevant factor was going to be comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration.

"That being the position, when the persons in zone of consideration possessing A' (very good) grading have been promoted in preference to her, the appellant cannot raise a grievance about her gradings after such promotions.," the bench said.

The top court said that the appellant had been a hard working officer and had never received any adverse comment in her career but denial of promotion has caused her serious prejudice.

"While the appellant, standing second in rank in her batch and having never earned any adverse comment, cannot be faulted in making such expressions but at the same time, it is expected of her to appreciate that when any particular progression depends on comparative merit, and only the persons standing higher in merit have been accorded such progression, her grievance cannot partake the character of a legal grievance that could lead to any relief in law," the bench said.

The Delhi High Court had earlier said there was a need to frame guidelines to bring in greater uniformity and transparency in evaluating the working of judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary.

The high court's directions came in a judgement on a plea of Additional District and Sessions Judge Sujata Kohli, whose petition has reflected long-standing grievances of many senior judges in subordinate judiciary who felt that the promotion policies for lower court judges adopted by various high courts including the Delhi HC were "arbitrary and non-transparent".

The bench had held that the Full Court resolutions of April 28, 2009, which was modified on January 15, 2010, and the later resolution of January 27, 2011, in which they prescribe that for appointment to the post of district judge, the judicial officer concerned should have been graded 'A' in the preceding five years, is "not arbitrary".

It had said Kohli's grievance that she was arbitrarily denied knowledge of the annual confidential report (ACR) grading of other officers, is also without merit.