Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
LAPITA BANERJI, J.
Suchhanda Ganguly & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Registrar, Original Side, High Court at Calcutta & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.O. No. 1238 of 2023
Decided on : 14-07-2023
SERVICE CONDITIONS - PROMOTION - CLUBBING OF POSTS - ASSISTANT REGISTRARS (DIRECTLY RECRUITED FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION) AND STAMP REPORTER(S) - WHETHER ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners are working as Assistant Registrars (directly recruited from the legal profession) in the Original Side Establishment of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. By a Notice dated December 18, 2020, it was notified that one new post has been sanctioned and designated as Deputy Registrar (Legal). The said Notice dated December 18, 2020, also informed that the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal), Original Side may be filled up from the Officers in the cadre of Assistant Registrars (directly recruited from the legal profession) and the cadre of Stamp Reporter(s) on the Original Side.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the decision of the Administrative Committee to club the posts of Assistant Registrars (Legal) and the Stamp Reporter(s) for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) by way of an examination was not arbitrary or unjustified. The Court noted that the Administrative Committee had taken into account the following factors: (i) There was no avenue for promotion for the Stamp Reporter(s). The said post was a dead alley. (ii) The Assistant Registrars (Legal) and the Stamp Reporter (s) were practising advocates at the time of recruitment. (iii) Both obtained Law Degrees and appointed through competitive examination/direct recruitment. (iv) Both Assistant Registrars (Legal) and Stamp Reporter(s) were performing Court related duties. (v) Both were getting same scale of pay.
Issues: Whether the decision of the Administrative Committee to club the posts of Assistant Registrars (Legal) and the Stamp Reporter(s) for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) by way of an examination was arbitrary or unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the decision of the Administrative Committee was not arbitrary or unjustified as it was based on relevant factors such as the lack of promotional avenues for Stamp Reporters, the similarity in the recruitment process and nature of work of Assistant Registrars (Legal) and Stamp Reporters, and the fact that both groups of officers were receiving the same scale of pay.
Final Decision: The Court directed the respondent no.4/the learned Registrar, Original Side, High Court at Calcutta, to dispose of the representations of the petitioners dated January 4, 2021, March 18, 2021, March 19, 2021 and March 28, 2022 by passing a reasoned Order within four weeks from the date of the Order. Prior to passing of the reasoned order the petitioners shall be given an opportunity of hearing. Till such time the representations of the petitioners are disposed of, there will be no publication of the results of the promotional examination to the post of Deputy Rgistrar (Legal), intimated to be held pursuant to the Impugned notice dated June 1, 2023.
JUDGMENT :
Lapita Banerji, J.
The petitioners are working as Assistant Registrars (directly recruited from the legal profession) in the Original Side Establishment of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. By a Notice dated December 18, 2020, it was notified that one new post has been sanctioned and designated as Deputy Registrar (Legal).
2. By the said Notice dated December 18, 2020, it was also informed that the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal), Original Side may be filled up from the Officers in the cadre of Assistant Registrars (directly recruited from the legal profession) and the cadre of Stamp Reporter(s) on the Original Side.
3. Names were invited from the Officers to show their willingness/unwillingness in writing for consideration of promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal), in short, DR (L) by the same notice.
4. The petitioners made a joint representation on January 4, 2021, for cancellation, withdrawal and/or modification of the Notice dated December 18, 2020. The petitioners prayed for deletion of the names of the Stamp Reporter(s) from the list of incumbents for being considered for promotion to the post of DR (L). The Joint Registrar (Administration)/Respondent No.5 by a communication dated March 11, 2021, informed the petitioners that by an Order dated March 1, 2021, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to reject the representation of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that such a rejection was made without assigning any reason. By the communication dated March 11, 2021, the respondent No.5 again sought for intimation of willingness/unwillingness of the incumbents to be considered for promotion to the post of DR (L).
5. Upon the communication dated March 11, 2021, being issued the petitioners preferred a joint representation on March 18, 2021. Another representation was made on March 19, 2021, for deferring the time to submit the willingness/unwillingness in terms of the communication dated March 11, 2021. Reasons were sought for rejection of the joint representation dated January 4, 2021 by the Order dated March 1, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
6. By a communication dated March 21, 2022, the petitioners were informed, that the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide Order dated March 17, 2022, was pleased to reject the prayers of the petitioners dated March 18, 2021 and March 19, 2021. No reasons were given as to why such prayers were rejected.
7. Subsequent thereto, another joint representation was made before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for recalling of the Order dated March 17, 2022, upon providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. There was no response to the said representation dated March 28, 2022. Thereafter, almost 10 months after the said representation, the petitioners were informed by the respondent No.5 vide communication dated February 1, 2023 that the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to reject the representation of the petitioners dated March 28, 2022 on January 30, 2023. As such, the rejection was done without an opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason to the petitioners. By a notice dated June 1, 2023 the incumbents from both the groups were requested to furnish their willingness/unwillingness to sit for the promotional examination.
8. It is the case of the Petitioners that under the High Court Services (Conditions of Services and Recruitment) Rules, 1960, the High Court services are classified into 4 Classes, i.e. Class-I, Class-II, Class-II and Class-IV. The posts of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar fall under Class-II. They are Gazetted Posts. The post of Stamp Reporter (SR) is a Class-III post. It is Non-Gazetted (Ministerial) post.
9. It is contended that the post of Stamp Reporter(s) (SR) is below the post of Superintendent, Grade-I. The post of SR could not be clubbed with that of ARs for promotion. The feeder post of a DR is AR and not SR. The Calcutta High Court Service Rules, 1960 are comprehensive Service Rules applicable to the staff
The decision of the Administrative Committee to club the posts of Assistant Registrars (Legal) and the Stamp Reporter(s) for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) by ....
The allocation of vacancies and creation of posts in the High Court Establishment are matters of policy within the powers of the Chief Justice and are not subject to judicial review unless they viola....
The court established that a promotion panel based on seniority-cum-merit remains valid until fully utilized, contrasting it with merit-cum-seniority processes.
Eligibility for promotion under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules is based on grade rather than specific post, but mere financial upgradation does not confer entitlement to promotion.
AMENDMENT TO RULE 14(V) OF THE RAJASTHAN DISTRICT COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT RULES, 1986, DOES NOT EXCLUDE STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I AND PERSONAL ASSISTANT CUM EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FROM THE ZONE OF C....
Un-communicated adverse ACRs may not be relied upon for consideration of promotions.
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
