Back
1998(2) Supreme 249
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan -Appellant
versus
Ramesh Chand Paliwal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 835 of 1994
Decided on 19-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Arvind Varma and S.K. Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : S.K. Bhattacharya, Advocate.
For the Intervenors : Pallav Shishodia, and A.P. Medh, Advocates.
Held : This Article makes Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants. This Article also confers rule-making power on the Chief Justice for regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that if the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the Governor of the State. If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate subject to the conditions made in that law. (Para 18)
Apart from the fact that the impugned directions to the Registrar are contrary to Article 229, they also have the effect of negativing the impact of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 made by the Chief Justice in exercise of power conferred by Article 229. (Para 30)
Further held that the real purport of the directions is to over-ride not only the constitutional provisions contained in Article 229 but also the rules made in exercise of powers available to the Chief Justice under the Article. A Judge of the High Court individually or all the Judges sitting collectively, as in the Full Court, cannot either alter the constitutional provisions or the rules made by the Chief Justice. They have no jurisdiction even to suggest any constitutional amendment or amendment in the rules made by the Chief Justice nor can they create any avenue of promotion for the High Court staff so as to be appointed on posts meant for Officers from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service or Rajasthan Judicial Service. The Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the High Court administration independently so as not to brook any interference from any quarter, not even from his Brother Judges who, however, can scrutinise his administrative action or order on the judicial side like the action of any other authority. It should not be lost sight that Registrars, under Rules of various High Courts, have also to perform some limited judicial functions which cannot be done by an officer other than a Judicial Officer in the High Court establishment. (Para 32)
(ii) Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953-Appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar-Post became vacant on 1.2.1992-This vacancy could be filled up only in accordance with the rules prevalent on that date-Respondent No. 2 promoted to that post in accordance with the rules as amended on 28-2-1992-Held, promotion was bad-High Court did not quash the appointment of respondent No. 2 since he was to retire on 30-9-1993-Direction made that the vacancy occurring on 1.10.1993 shall be treated to be a vacancy available on 1.2.1992 and that vacancy would be filled up in accordance with the rule-Sustainable. (Paras 3 & 4)
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.
Judgment
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-The Authority which has been dispensing justice to others, is, today before us seeking itself justice on being aggrieved by the judgment passed by two of its Judges on 28.9.93 in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 (Ramesh Chand Paliwal) challenging the promotion of respondent No. 2 (Sankal Chand Mehta) on the post of Deputy Registrar. Not only that respondent No. 1 wanted the Chief Justice’s order dated 6.3.92 by which Sankal Chand Mehta was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar to be quashed, he also prayed that the order of the Chief Justice dated 28.2.92 by which the earlier establishment order dated 11.5.90 was amended, be also quashed.
2. The Chief Justice, in exercise of powers available to him under Article 229 of the Constitution, has made Rules known as Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 which have been amended by him from time to time by administrative orders. The promotion on the post in question is regulated by these Rules.
3. The vacancy, on which Sankal Chand Mehta was promoted as Deputy Registrar, had occurred on the retirement of Shambhu Chand Mehta on 31st of January, 1992. The post of Deputy Registrar, therefore, became vacant on 1st of February, 1992. It has been held that this vacancy could be filled up only in accordance with the rules which were prevalent on that date and since respondent No. 2 had been promoted to that post in accordance with the rules as amended on 28.2.92, and, not in accordance with the rules prevalent on 1.2.92, the said promotion was bad. The Hon’ble Judges proceeded to say that ordinarily they would have quashed the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Deputy Registrar but since he was to retire on 30th of September, 1993, they did not do so but directed that the vacancy occurring on 1.10.93 shall be treated to be a vacancy available on 1.2.92 and that vacancy would be filled up in accordance with the rules set out in the administrative order dated 11.5.90 by considering the eligible officers belonging to the cadre of Private Secretaries only. It was further directed that the appointment made on the post of Deputy Registrar would be deemed to have been made w.e.f. 6.3.92 when respondent No. 2 was illegally promoted to that post. The Judges did not decide the question of validity of the amendments made by the Chief Justice in the rules by order dated 28.2.92.
4. We are informed that so far as appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar is concerned, the directions set out in the impugned judgment have since been complied with and the promotion on the post of Deputy Registrar has been made in accordance with those directions. In this appeal, therefore, we are not now concerned with the promotion made on the post of Deputy Registrar nor are we concerned with the validity of amendments introduced in the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 by order dated 28.2.92.
5. During the course of the judgment, the learned Judges digressed from the main course and wrote out two pages as under:-
“An argument has been raised on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that all the posts on the establishment of the High Court can be manned by the officers belonging to the establishment of the High Court, but the officers belonging to the establishment of the High Court are not promoted to any posts above the post of the Dy. Registrar and even two posts of Dy. Registrars designated as Dy. Registrar (Judl.) and one post of Principle Private Secretary to the Hon’ble Chief Justice are being filled in by bringing the officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and/or of Rajasthan High Judicial Service on deputation, in spite of the fact that many courts are lying vacant in the various districts of the State. It has been submitted that this results is not only causing frustration amongst the officials belonging to the establishment of the High Court but also deprives the litigating public of the State of
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
