Allahabad High Court · 2025

1. This review application has been filed by respondent-2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General seeking review of the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023. The relevant portion of Paragraph 25 of the judgement of which review is sought is reproduced herein below: "The claim of petitioner has, however, been vehemently opposed by Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for respondent-2. He submits that it is true that the mandate of the circular dated 19.5.200 (correct date 19.5.2000) was not complied with by the then District Judge, concerned inasmuch as the relevant facts and supporting material have neither been referred to in the annual Confidential Roll of the petitioner nor they were disclosed to the petitioner nor any reason in the light of the same has been recorded."

2. We have heard Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for review applicant and Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for writ petitioner.

3. Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for review applicant, with reference to the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 submits that in paragraph 25 of the aforementioned judgement, an error has crept in. According to the learned counsel for review applicant no concession was accorded by him at the time of hearing of the writ petition. As such, the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023 is beyond record. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, he submits that it was strenuously urged by him at the time of the hearing of the writ petition that the Government Order dated 19.5.2000 was fully complied with inasmuch the complaint received by the District Judge, Ghaziabad against the petitioner, were duly transmitted to the High Court. Since the then District Judge, Ghaziabad, the immediate superior of the petitioner and also the Reviewing Authority of petitioner was elevated to the Bench of this Court, therefore, the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry so awarded by the District Judge, Ghaziabad was to be considered by the Administrative Committee of High Court, Allahabad. On the above premise, he therefore contends that the aforementioned observations are liable to be reviewed.

4. In continuation of his submissions and in support of the present review application, the learned counsel for review applicant with much vehemence has referred to the grounds numbers a, b of the grounds of review raised in the review application. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the said grounds. Accordingly, the same are extracted herein below: "A. Because the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court is liable to be reviewed in as much as there is an error apparent on record with respect to the concession of the undersigned counsel apperring on behalf of the High Court that the Circular dated 19/5/2007 was not complied with by the District Judge. B. Because in paragraph 10 of the written submissions dated 26/05/2023, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 it was categorically submitted that 'so far as the revised proforma dated 19/05/2007 is concerned, same is applicable to the petitioner and in this regard it is respectfully submitted that the same has been complied as the adverse remarks awarded to the petitioner in the 2 of 5 annual confidential remarks for the year 2013-14 clearly noted that there were compiaints against the petitioner. Details of the complaints have already been brought on record as Exhibit 1 to this written submissions.'"

5. On the cumulative strength of above, it is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for review applicant that the recital occrring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 is liable to be reviewed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently opposed the present review application. In the submission of Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner there does not exist any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the observations made in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023. According to Mr. Ashok Khare, the submission that has been urged before this Court by the learned counsel for review applicant, does not form part of the grounds raised in support of the review application. It is then contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement has been admitted by respondent-2 as is evident from ground no. G of the grounds of review. Accordingly, ground- G of the grounds of review is reproduced herein below: "Because the circular dated 19.5.2007 only mandates for recording the relevant facts, reasons and supporting material."

7. Mr. Ashok Khare, has then contended that admittedly the adverse entry was awarded to petitioner by the immediate superior i.e. the District Judge, Ghaziabad, who is also the reviewing authority. Therefore, the circular dated 19.5.2000 was required to be complied with by the District Judge, Ghaziabad himself at the first instance. The transmission of the complaints made against petitioner to the District Judge, Ghaziabad to the High Court could not cure the irreularity/ illegality regarding the procedure adopted by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in awarding adverse entry to the petitioner. To lend support to his aforesaid submission, he has referred to paragraph 29 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023, which reads as under: 3 of 5 " 29. There is no dispute between the parties that the procedure regarding writing of Annual Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers was crystallized by this Court vide circular dated 19.05.2007. The said circular is not directory but mandatory as it directs the reporting authority to write Annual Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers as per the circular itself. It is by now well settled that where the law prescribes, a thing to be done in a particular manner, it can be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. This was held way back in 1936 in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253. The same view has been reiterated time and again and we need not burden our judgment with multiple judgments on the said issue. "

8. On the above conspectus, the learned Senior Counsel has tried to impress upon the Court by contending that review of the observations occurring at paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 is firstly being sough on the basis of a ground which has not been pleaded. Further, no personal affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel, categorically swearing on oath that no concession as mentioned in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 was accorded by him at the time of hearing of present writ petition. Apart from above, ground-G of the grounds raised in support of this review application amounts to a clear admission regarding the import of the note appended to column-A of Head Note one of the circular letter No. 23 6F (C/2007). On the above premise, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner thus concludes that there is no error in the order dated 29.8.2023, much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the observations contained in judgement and order dated 29.8.2023. As such, this review application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions, we find that the objections raised by Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner are not only borne out from the record but the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for review applicant, with reference to the record. We accordingly conclude that no error much less an error apparent on the face of the record exists warranting review of the observations made in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.08.2023. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present review application. 4 of 5

10. In view of the discussions made herein above, this review application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

11. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5

1. This review application has been filed by respondent-2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General seeking review of the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023. The relevant portion of Paragraph 25 of the judgement of which review is sought is reproduced herein below: "The claim of petitioner has, however, been vehemently opposed by Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for respondent-2. He submits that it is true that the mandate of the circular dated 19.5.200 (correct date 19.5.2000) was not complied with by the then District Judge, concerned inasmuch as the relevant facts and supporting material have neither been referred to in the annual Confidential Roll of the petitioner nor they were disclosed to the petitioner nor any reason in the light of the same has been recorded."

2. We have heard Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for review applicant and Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for writ petitioner.

3. Mr. Ashish Mishra, the learned counsel for review applicant, with reference to the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 submits that in paragraph 25 of the aforementioned judgement, an error has crept in. According to the learned counsel for review applicant no concession was accorded by him at the time of hearing of the writ petition. As such, the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023 is beyond record. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, he submits that it was strenuously urged by him at the time of the hearing of the writ petition that the Government Order dated 19.5.2000 was fully complied with inasmuch the complaint received by the District Judge, Ghaziabad against the petitioner, were duly transmitted to the High Court. Since the then District Judge, Ghaziabad, the immediate superior of the petitioner and also the Reviewing Authority of petitioner was elevated to the Bench of this Court, therefore, the representation of the petitioner against the adverse entry so awarded by the District Judge, Ghaziabad was to be considered by the Administrative Committee of High Court, Allahabad. On the above premise, he therefore contends that the aforementioned observations are liable to be reviewed.

4. In continuation of his submissions and in support of the present review application, the learned counsel for review applicant with much vehemence has referred to the grounds numbers a, b of the grounds of review raised in the review application. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the said grounds. Accordingly, the same are extracted herein below: "A. Because the judgment and order dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court is liable to be reviewed in as much as there is an error apparent on record with respect to the concession of the undersigned counsel apperring on behalf of the High Court that the Circular dated 19/5/2007 was not complied with by the District Judge. B. Because in paragraph 10 of the written submissions dated 26/05/2023, filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 it was categorically submitted that 'so far as the revised proforma dated 19/05/2007 is concerned, same is applicable to the petitioner and in this regard it is respectfully submitted that the same has been complied as the adverse remarks awarded to the petitioner in the 2 of 5 annual confidential remarks for the year 2013-14 clearly noted that there were compiaints against the petitioner. Details of the complaints have already been brought on record as Exhibit 1 to this written submissions.'"

5. On the cumulative strength of above, it is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for review applicant that the recital occrring in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 is liable to be reviewed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently opposed the present review application. In the submission of Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner there does not exist any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the observations made in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated

29.8.2023. According to Mr. Ashok Khare, the submission that has been urged before this Court by the learned counsel for review applicant, does not form part of the grounds raised in support of the review application. It is then contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the recital occurring in paragraph 25 of the judgement has been admitted by respondent-2 as is evident from ground no. G of the grounds of review. Accordingly, ground- G of the grounds of review is reproduced herein below: "Because the circular dated 19.5.2007 only mandates for recording the relevant facts, reasons and supporting material."

7. Mr. Ashok Khare, has then contended that admittedly the adverse entry was awarded to petitioner by the immediate superior i.e. the District Judge, Ghaziabad, who is also the reviewing authority. Therefore, the circular dated 19.5.2000 was required to be complied with by the District Judge, Ghaziabad himself at the first instance. The transmission of the complaints made against petitioner to the District Judge, Ghaziabad to the High Court could not cure the irreularity/ illegality regarding the procedure adopted by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in awarding adverse entry to the petitioner. To lend support to his aforesaid submission, he has referred to paragraph 29 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023, which reads as under: 3 of 5 " 29. There is no dispute between the parties that the procedure regarding writing of Annual Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers was crystallized by this Court vide circular dated 19.05.2007. The said circular is not directory but mandatory as it directs the reporting authority to write Annual Confidential Remarks of Judicial Officers as per the circular itself. It is by now well settled that where the law prescribes, a thing to be done in a particular manner, it can be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. This was held way back in 1936 in the case of Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 Privy Council 253. The same view has been reiterated time and again and we need not burden our judgment with multiple judgments on the said issue. "

8. On the above conspectus, the learned Senior Counsel has tried to impress upon the Court by contending that review of the observations occurring at paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 is firstly being sough on the basis of a ground which has not been pleaded. Further, no personal affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel, categorically swearing on oath that no concession as mentioned in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.8.2023 was accorded by him at the time of hearing of present writ petition. Apart from above, ground-G of the grounds raised in support of this review application amounts to a clear admission regarding the import of the note appended to column-A of Head Note one of the circular letter No. 23 6F (C/2007). On the above premise, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner thus concludes that there is no error in the order dated 29.8.2023, much less an error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the observations contained in judgement and order dated 29.8.2023. As such, this review application is liable to be dismissed.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions, we find that the objections raised by Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner are not only borne out from the record but the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for review applicant, with reference to the record. We accordingly conclude that no error much less an error apparent on the face of the record exists warranting review of the observations made in paragraph 25 of the judgement and order dated 29.08.2023. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present review application. 4 of 5

10. In view of the discussions made herein above, this review application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

11. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5