B. L. GOEL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

B. L. GOEL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Since the appellant was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge since July 1960 and a substantive post was available from April 1, 1966, and as there was no evidence of unfitness, confirmation of the appellant from a later date than respondents was arbitrary and discriminatory. The impugned notifications regarding confirmation and seniority are not based on reasonable principle and must be reconsidered.

Parties
Appellant: B. L. Goel; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: R. C. Bajpai; Respondent: Rikheshwari Prasad; Respondent: Behari Ji Das; Intervener: Intervener (B. S. Yadav and Ors.)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Service – Confirmation and Seniority, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Article 235 – Control Over Subordinate Judiciary
Service Law Constitutional Law Judicial Service – Confirmation and Seniority Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Article 235 – Control Over Subordinate Judiciary

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. L. Goel

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

R. C. Bajpai

Respondent

Rikheshwari Prasad

Respondent

Behari Ji Das

Respondent

Intervener (B. S. Yadav and Ors.)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notifications regarding confirmation and seniority of the appellant and respondents in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service were valid and based on reasonable principles
  2. 2 Whether confirmation of the appellant from a date later than others was arbitrary and discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

Since the appellant was officiating as Civil and Sessions Judge since July 1960 and a substantive post was available from April 1, 1966, and as there was no evidence of unfitness, confirmation of the appellant from a later date than respondents was arbitrary and discriminatory. The impugned notifications regarding confirmation and seniority are not based on reasonable principle and must be reconsidered.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned notifications dated March 19, 1975 and July 22, 1977 fixing confirmation dates of appellant and respondents in both junior and senior grades are set aside.
  • High Court directed to reconsider and refix confirmation dates and inter se seniority in exercise of power under Article 235 of the Constitution.