SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 227

1997(2) Supreme 38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Satnam Singh & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3705 of 1990
With
Civil Appeal No. 3704 of 1990
Decided on 7-2-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : H.N. Salve, V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocates, Pradeep Gupta, K.K. Mohan, Gaurav Jain, Ms. Abha Jain, P.P. Tripathi, Suresh C. Gupta, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Gaurav K. Banerjee, Navin Prakash, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is settled that a proviso cannot expand or limit the clear meaning of the main provision.

Headnote:High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973-Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA II and III-Rules 16 and 30-Two different sets of Rules-One relating to pay, special pay and pension etc. involving financial implications-Other set providing for quota and prescribing mode of determining seniority-Date of enforcement-High Court taken view that commencement of entire set of rules including Rules 16 and 30 was from 30th January, 1975 and not 1st March, 1974-Significant distinction between present case and Sunder Sham Kapur case (1987) 4 SLR 460 overlooked by High Court-All rules framed by Chief Justice except for Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, II and III sent for approval came into force with effect from 1st March, 1974-Held: Rule 16 providing for quota and Rules 30 prescribing mode of determining seniority came into force with effect from 1st March, 1974-Impugned Judgment of High Court set aside.

       Held : We have not doubt that all the rules framed by the Chief Justice except for Rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, 2 and 3 which alone were sent for approval according to the proviso to clause (2) of Article 229, came into force with effect from March 1, 1974 by virtue of the order of Chief Justice of the High Court. This is how the High Court understood it till some doubt was created because of the significant distinction in the decision in Sunder Sham Kapoor being overlooked. It is, therefore, clear that Rules 16 providing for the quota and Rule 30 prescribing the mode of determining seniority came into force with effect from March 1, 1974. The quota for the direct recruits and promotees has to be worked out accordingly and the vacancies have to be filled on that basis. The High Court is required to calculate the vacancies on this basis. (Para 10)

       

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (for short the "Rules") were made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution of India. By order dated March 18, 1974, the Chief Justice of the High Court made these rules applicable with effect from March 1, 1974; and the rules involving financial implications were referred to the Central Government through Chandigarh Administration for obtaining approval as required by the Proviso to Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution. It was expressly mentioned in the order that "all new appointments made after March 1, 1974 have been regulated by the new rules". The Chief Justice also directed the office by the order dated April 19, 1974 to circulate the new rules to the entire staff and all concerned. Publication of rules in this manner was made and the rules, except those involving financial implications, came into force in actual working with effect from March 1, 1974. The circulation note dated April 24, 1974 of the Deputy Registrar, Administration clearly records this fact.

2. Rule 16 of the above Rules prescribed the quota for filling the posts of Assistants by specifying that 50% of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% posts were to be filled by promotion from the clerks on the establishment of the Court. Rule 30 prescribed the method of determining seniority. These rules did not involve any financial implications and according to the aforesaid order of the Chief Justice of the High Court they were treated as effective from March 1, 1974.

3. A controversy has arisen about the date on which rules 16 and 30 came into force because the rules involving financial implications are held to have come into force from a later date.

4. This date has significance because the quota provided by these rules was abolished from January 20, 1978 and the availability of number of vacancies for the direct recruits would be more if the period of quota rule is longer. Writ petitions files in the High Court have led to the impugned judgment. Neither side is fully satisfied with the decision. Civil Appeal No. 3704 is by promotees and Civil Appeal No. 3705 is by direct recruits against the same judgment dated February 21, 1989.

5. As earlier stated, the High Court sent a proposal for approval of the Government to the rules involving financial implications at the time of applying these rules with effect from March 1, 1974 by order of the Chief Justice. The proposal for approval was made only in respect of rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, II and III of the said Rules. These rules related to pay, special pay and pension etc. so that they undoubtedly related to financial matters and required the approval envisaged by the Proviso to Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution. The correspondence between the High Court and the Government is clear to indicate that the proposal for approval of the Government and the approval accorded to the same related only to rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, II and III only. The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice) letter No. 30/8/83-Jus., dated September 25, 1985 to the Home Secretary, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh with a copy to the Registrar, High Court, clearly says that the approval of the President was only to these rules involving financial implications. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the entire exercise, from the proposal by the High Court to approval of the President related only to rules 26, 27 and 34 and Schedules I, IA, II and III of the said Rules relating to certain conditions of service involving financial implications and not to the remaining rules contained in the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973. Our concern in these matters is confined o




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top