Certain other reliefs, a detailed reference to which is wholly unnecessary, have also been claimed.
In addition thereto, relief of Certiorari was sought even to quash the grant of selection grade to respondents 4 to 8 on the ground that the criteria on which it was accorded to them was wholly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The first petitioner was said to have been promoted on 30.8.1995, whereas petitioners 2 to 4 and respondent 3 promoted as District Sessions Judges in November 1995.
On 4.7.2001, the third respondent was placed in the selection grade w.e.f.
The said guidelines were also impugned as being irrational and inconsistent with what is known as recommendations of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty Commission accepted, subject to certain modifications, by this Court in the decision reported in All India Judges Association Vs.
The second petitioner was said to have been granted selection grade by order No.810 dated 24.12.2001 w.e.f.
As a companysequence to the above, relief in the nature of Mandamus was also sought to direct the second respondent to grant selection grade to the petitioners 1 to 3 with effect from 28.6.2001and further grant to the petitioners 1 to 3 super time scale with effect from 27.4.2002, the date on which it was said to have been given to R 3, in addition to seeking for such relief for Mandamus to give selection grade to petitioners 4 and 5 with effect from 27.4.2002, the date from which it was given to respondents 4 to 8, with all companysequential benefits including the seniority and arrears of pay.
In the Gradation List published by the High Court on 1.1.2001, petitioners 1 to 4 were said to have been shown at Serial Nos.15, 16, 17 and 19, whereas respondents 3 to 8 were shown at Serial Nos.18, 31, 32, 36, 23 and 37 respectively.
22.12.2001 without restoring his original seniority, while at the same time bypassing the claims of petitioner No.1.
The grievance of the petitioners, among other things, is that the third respondent had never worked as District and Sessions Judge for any period and he was number even entitled to be companysidered for according such selection grade.
Petitioners 1 to 4 and respondent 3 were companyfirmed as District Sessions Judges on 22.1.1998 with effect from 1997 while the other private parties respondents are said to be companytinued as temporary officiating District Sessions Judges.
The ACRs prepared by the Justice A.M. Mir Committee was said to have been rejected without justification.
It may be stated at this stage that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held a Full Court Meeting on 27.4.2002 to companysider the issue relating to the grant of super time scale selection grade in Higher Judicial Services and the Full Court formulated the criteria guidelines for grant of super time scale and selection grade for members of the Higher Judicial Services.
Apart from highlighting certain alleged infirmities assumed by the petitioners to vitiate the ACRs companysidered, grievance is also made against the companyparative overall assessment made in the ACRs and particularly the one accorded to R 3 alone as Outstanding throughout, who, according to the petitioners, had numberexperience as District Judge in the field.
142, the third respondent was placed in the super time scale applying the numberms formulated by the High Court, which are also the subject matter of challenge in these proceedings.
On 16.4.2002, the petitioners 1 and 2 seem to have made representations to the President of India.
28.6.2001, according to the writ petitioners, over the head of six District Judges senior to him.
Union of India 2002 4 SCC 247.
On companying to know of the same, the petitioners 1 and 3 sought for companyies of the proceedings and as soon as they were given in September 2001, the petitioners 1 to 3 also seem to have made Representations Review Petitions against the order No.283 dated 4.7.2001.
The third respondent was said to have been given the super time scale superseding eight District Judges senior to him.
On the same day by yet another proceedings on 27.4.2002 in order No.
The petitioners and respondents 3 and 7 were said to have been selected as Munsiffs after passing the Kashmir Civil Services Judicial Examination on 28.8.1974 and respondents 4 to 6 and 8 were selected for appointment during the period between 1978 and 1982.
J U D G M E N T RAJU, J. The above Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order bearing No.283 dated 4.7.2002 and order Nos.142 143 dated 27.4.2002 and also to quash the grant of selection grade and super time scale to the third respondent herein, including the recommendations said to have been made for companysideration of the name of R 3 for further elevation.
