The petitioner’s argument is centered on asserting the exclusive authority of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerning the appointment, regulation, and management of the Court’s officers and staff, as enshrined in the constitutional provisions. The petitioner contends that the directions issued by the Judges of the High Court, which seek to have the posts managed by the High Court staff on deputation and to alter the established rules, directly contravene the constitutional mandate under Article 229. This article explicitly grants the Chief Justice the sole power to make rules and to appoint officers and servants of the High Court, subject to specific restrictions such as the requirement of approval from the Governor for certain matters like salaries and allowances (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the Judges’ directions to prepare reports and consider alternative management methods infringe upon the Chief Justice’s exclusive administrative authority. Such actions are not only contrary to the constitutional scheme but also undermine the rule-making powers vested solely in the Chief Justice, which cannot be usurped or overridden by other Judges or the Full Court (!) (!) (!) .

The petitioner emphasizes that the constitutional separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary necessitate that administrative functions related to appointments and conditions of service remain within the sole purview of the Chief Justice. Any attempt by other Judges or the Full Court to interfere or direct these functions would violate the constitutional framework and the established rules made under Article 229 (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the petitioner’s argument underscores that the directions issued by the Judges are unconstitutional, as they encroach upon the exclusive authority of the Chief Justice, undermine the rule of law, and violate the constitutional and statutory provisions governing the administration of the High Court.