(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA) The petitioner is aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the notification dated 8.3.2011 resulting into denial of Second Assured Career Progression Scale. It was vehemently argued by learned senior counsel Mr.J.T.Trivedi that the petitioner was subjected to hostile discrimination and injustice was meted out to him in comparison with similar case of one learned Judge Mr.M.R.Gohil who was granted the Second ACP.
Upon the notice being issued, affidavit-in-reply of the Deputy Registrar of the High Court is filed to submit on oath that while considering the niceties and the procedure to be adopted for grant of Second ACP in the cadre of Senior Civil Judges, the committee of the Senior Judges of the High Court had fixed certain norms after taking into account the report of the Shetty Commission and after considering Rule 9(B) of the Gujarat State Subordinate Judicial Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2003 and the committee was of the opinion that if any judges secures 3 or more "Poor" or "Inadequate" in relation to the disposal of the work or 4 or more "Below Average" in the grading, then he would not be entitled to secure benefits of Second ACP. It is further stated that according to the report of the Shetty Commission, the conferment of benefits of Second ACP cannot be automatic but on the appraisal of their work and performance by a committee of Senior Judges of the High Court constituted for that purpose. In fact, while considering the question of granting Second ACP to 38 officers, the committee of two Judges of the High Court have considered the above norms fixed by earlier committee and upon consideration of the last five years performance of the judicial officers in accordance with the norms mentioned above, the petitioner was found unsuitable by the committee for granting Second ACP looking to the average assessment of disposal of the cases as he had obtained two "inadequate" and one "poor" for past three years out of five years. Regarding average assessment of disposal of the cases, the report of that committee was placed before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 1.3.2011 wherein recommendation was accepted. Again the representation dated 14.6.2011 of the petitioner was placed before Honourable the Chief Justice wherein His Lordship ordered it to be placed before the Standing Committee and upon its consideration, it was decided at the meeting held on 14.7.2011 of the Standing Committee to reject the representation dated 14.6.2011. It is further stated that in respect of the case of Mr.M.R.Gohil, after applying the same norms, he was not falling under the criteria fixed by the committee for not granting Second ACP and, therefore, the averment of treating the petitioner differently is not substantiated by facts.
Having regard to the aforesaid statement made on oath and in absence of any challenge to the veracity of the said statement, the averment made by the petitioner clearly appears to be unfounded and without any substance. The petitioner having no fundamental or statutory vested right to claim the Second ACP and in view of the reasonable and objective assessment of his case as aforesaid, the petition is dismissed and notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
(D.H.Waghela,J) (Mohinder Pal,J) pathan Top