The High Court ultimately by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and directed that the name of the petitioner be reconsidered for promotion to the post of Additional that the State of Maharashtra, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as also the Chief Justice have appealed to this Court.
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, respondent No.
for the Respondent O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered The Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Civil Judge, Junior Division on 16.3.1972.
The name of the respondent No.1 was, however excluded form the list finally prepared by the Full Court for being forwarded to the State Govt.
He was promoted as Civil Judge, Senior Division cum Chief Judicial Magistrate on 7.9.1983.
for appointment of the post of additional District Judge.
1 was called for interview.
In 1986 process for making selection for purposes of promotion to the post of Additional District Judge was initiated by the High Court.
From the facts found by the High Court it appears that the Judgment Scrutiny Committee categorised respondent No.
The select list prepared by the Interview Committee was companysidered by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court in its meeting on 2nd and 3rd May, 1987.
1 as Grade A. companymunicated to him.
1 retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 2nd of May, 1990.
for the appellants Uday Umesh Lalit, Makarand D.Adkar, S.D.Singh, Sudhanshu Atreya, Advs.,
20.10.1986, respondent No.
The exclusion was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed before the Bombay the Bombay High Court which by the impugned judgment found that the petitioners name was included in the select list prepared by the Interview Committee but was excluded by the Full Court of the Bombay High Court for reasons which are number disclosed to the Court.
His performance at the interview was also good and his name was included in the select list for promotion to post of Additional District Judge.
