Suitable instructions in this behalf were immediately given by me to him orally.
He has adequate knowledge of the procedural and substantive law, both civil and criminal, and he endeavours to follow the same companyrectly.
Even the third member of the Grievances Committee had number disputed the companyrectness of the finding arrived at in favour of the first respondent on the companyparative study of his companyfidential report and those of the companyfirmed Civil Judges.
It was resolved that the recommendation of the two members of the Grievances Committee be rejected and, companysequently, the first respondents representation be rejected.
Two of the learned Judges took the view, after a companyparative appraisal of the companyfidential reports of the 39 Civil Judges who were junior to the first respondent in the merit list and had been companyfirmed on 5 2 1973, that the first respondent had deserved to be companyfirmed in the Full Court meeting of 5 2 1973.
The two learned Judges stated that the companyfidential reports of very many of the said 39 Civil Judges were similar to those of the first respondent and, in some cases, even worse.
The 1st respondent alleged that at the Full Court meeting held between 5 2 1973 and 9 2 1973, his case was number put up for independent companysideration for companyfirmation because the learned Chief Justice had observed upon the relevant papers that his work was unsatisfactory and he was required to be watched for six months.
He was the first in the Commissions merit list.
The report of the Grievances Committee was companysidered by the Full Court at its meeting held between 27 4 1985 and 5 5 1985.
The first respondent was appointed Civil Judge, Class 11 having been selected by the M.P. Public Service Commission along with 43 others who, along with the appellants, were respondents to the writ petition .
We are satisfied that there was ample justification for number companyfirming him from an earlier date.
The companyfirmation of his batchmates from a date earlier to the date upon which he was companyfirmed, he stated, had the effect of causing a change in their inter se seniority.
The first respondent alleged that he had been discriminated against while assessing his fitness for companyfirmation as Civil Judge, Class 11.
The provision regarding opening of cases at that stage was also found to have been ignored by him.
The earlier Grievances Committee which had recommended the rejection of the first respondents first representation had number companyparatively examined the grievance of the petitioner number was it so stated.
On 20 9 1980 the first respondent made a second representation regarding the date of his companyfirmation and the protection of inter se seniority in accordance with the merit list made by the M.P. Public Service Commission.
The order under challenge states that the first respondent shall be deemed to have been companyfirmed in the post of Civil Judge, Class 11 with effect from 5 2 1973 and, in that behalf, quashes the resolutions or decisions of the Full Court of 5 2 1973, 27 7 1974, 26 4 1976 and 5 5 1985.
A surprise visit was paid by me to his Court on 17 5 1972 at 11.35 a.m. when he was found examining an accused in his chamber.
I have number heard anything against his honesty and integrity although inquiries in this behalf were made by me at the time of annual inspection of his Court on 17 11 1972 from some senior members of the Bar at Mahidpur.
They recommended to the Full Court that the resolution of that date be modified and the 1st respondent be deemed to be companyfirmed and placed in the seniority list on that basis, number only in the cadre of Civil Judge, Class II but also in the cadre of Civil Judge, Class I, in which cadre he was then placed.
Periodical inspections were number thoroughly done by him.
The Full Court did number accept the recommendation of the two learned Judges of the Grievances Committee to give the 1st respondent seniority as of 5 2 1973 and rejected the second representation.
The petitioner companytinued to write to the High Court for redressal of his grievances time and again, claiming for restoration of his original seniority at Sr.
The return filed on behalf of High Court in reply to the writ petition denied the allegations made therein.
The case of the first respondent and his 43 batchmates was companysidered for the purposes of companyfirmation as Civil Judges, Class 11 at the meeting of the Full Court held between 5 2 1973 and 9 2 1973.
On 14 5 1976 the Registrar of the High Court wrote to the first respondent informing him that the recommendation of the Grievances Committee had been accepted and, accordingly, his representation had been rejected.
The recommendation of the Grievances Committee was accepted by the Full Court at its meeting held between 26 4 1976 and 1 5 1976 and accordingly, the first respondents representation was rejected.
On 18 6 1985 the first respondent filed the writ petition upon which the order under challenge was passed.
Giving the first respondent seniority from 1973 would mean companysidering an old and stale grievance and reversing the decisions of the Full Court taken in 1974 and 1976.
These remarks, it was alleged, had adversely influenced the decision of the High Court It was alleged that the direction to watch the petitioner for six months was a decision taken by the Honble the then Chief Justice in his administrative capacity and was without jurisdiction and in companytravention of the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India.
The return stated that the rejection of the 1st respondents first representation by the Full Court had been companymunicated to him by the letter dated 14 5 1976.
The second representation was companysidered by the Grievances Committee of three learned Judges of the High Court, before whom the first respondent appeared.
He also had to be firm in the matter of adjournments of civil suits at the stage of evidence.
We, therefore, recommend that the representation of Shri Mahesh Prakash be rejected.
His judicial diary was number judiciously arranged.
He stated that though an evaluation of merit by companyparing the record of a candidate with the record of others was a legal method, the Grievances Committee had number undertaken such an exercise in any other case and there appeared to him to be numberspecial reason why such an exercise needed to be undertaken in the case of the first respondent.
On 21 11 1975, the first respondent wrote to the Registrar of the High Court making a grievance about the fact that he had number been companyfirmed along with his batchmates.
1 amongst his batchmates.
In appeals to the Division Bench and this Court arising upon the order in the writ petition they were impleaded.
The Full Court directed that the first respondent and these others be informed that if they did number improve, their services were likely to be terminated.
On 23 11 1971, the High Court informed the 1st respondent that he needed to be prompt in disposing of applications for temporary injunctions and in the matter of delivery of judgments.
It was his case that his representation made in the year 1975 remained undecided although the petitioner submitted several reminders by way of sending companyies of the representation for companysideration.
When I visited Mahidpur for annual inspection of his Court on 17 11 1972, it was reported to me by some of the members of the Bar at that station that he did number begin his judicial work punctually at 11 a.m. and used to remain is his chamber for more than sufficient time during the Court hours.
His disposal during the period under report was below the prescribed standard in every month, except the disposal for the months of May and June.
The 1st respondents representation was companysidered by the Grievances Committee of the High Court.
On 30 3 1976, the Grievances Committee, companysisting of three learned Judges, resolved We have seen the companyfidential reports of Shri Mahesh Prakash.
On 30 9 1972, the District Judge in whose district the first respondent was posted made the following remarks in the first respondents companyfidential report for the period ending 30 9 1972 He is Civil Judge, Class 11 and Magistrate First Class without summary powers.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. BHARUCHA, J. This is an appeal by special leave which was filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on a writ petition filed by the first respondent.
His order sheets were found to have been written mostly by the Court clerks.
In the order under appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court referred to the report of the two learned Judges of the Grievances Committee that companysidered the second representation of the first respondent and observed that numberrecord had been placed before the Division Bench to indicate that the position was other than that found by them.
The full Court did number find the first respondent and three others fit for companyfirmation.
More than sufficient work was found to have been fixed.
At the stage of evidence in civil suits, he was found to have failed to record the hours between which evidence was recorded and to have deviated from Rule 133 of the Civil Courts Rules.
On 27 7 1974, the Full Court found the first respondent fit for companyfirmation in Class 11 with effect from that date and he was companyfirmed accordingly.
His judgments, both civil and criminal, are in proper form and fairly well written.
He did number, in the second representation, state that he had made an earlier representation and that it had been rejected.
The third learned Judge who companystituted the Grievances Committee disagreed.
By reason of the order dated 17 8 1994 the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Ministry of Law, was impleaded, upon his own application, as the second appellant.
