The Chief Justice of a High Court has the sole authority to appoint the Registrar of the High Court and is not required to follow a set procedure or consider all possible candidates.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who is an Advocate has applied for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the appointment of the respondent as Registrar of this High Court. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the respondent Was illegally appointed, and also, prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the notification, Annex. p-l by which he Was appointed. It is also stated that an order, direction or writ in the nature of quo warranto be issued against the respondent. Basically, the petition is one for a writ of quo warranto, but other aspects of the matter which may be open have also to be considered.

( 2 ) A show cause notice was issued to the respondent and we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

( 3 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the writ of quo warranto has to be limited to the formal validity of the order appointing the respondent and no question of motive or other ground can be gone into. For this purpose reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Full Bench in P. L. Lakhanpal v. A. N. Ray, ILR (1974) 1 Delhi 725 : (AIR 1975 Delhi 66), wherein it was held that a writ of quo warranto is a writ of technical nature which merely asks the question as to whether there was a warrant of appointment for holding the office and the question of mala fides was completely irrelevant to the matter. In that case, the appointment of Justice A. N. Ray as Chief Justice of India was under challenge. In the present case, the order under challenge Annex. p-l is, therefore, a complete answer to the petition viewed as a writ of quo warranto.

( 4 ) THE petitioner has also urged that the appointment of the respondent as Registrar has not been made by considering all the possible persons who can be appointed and it has been submitted that a senior member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service has to be appointed and as many as 24 officers of that service senior to the respondent have been overlooked. It is hence submitted that the appointment is contrary to Art. 16 of the Constitution as there is no equality of opportunity for appointment. In answer to this point, it was submitted for the respondent that only such person can move the Court whose own fundamental rights are affected. (See Hans Muller of Nurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, AIR 1955 SC 367, at p. 373 ). There can be hardly any quarrel with the proposition that the question of breach 4)f fundamental rights can only be raised by a person who is adversely affected by the denial of equality of opportunity. It can also not be denied that the petitioner though he is an Advocate and could be appointed as Registrar does not himself claim denial of equality. The petition could, therefore, be disposed of on these two short grounds but, we do not think that we should confine ourselves in this manner, especially when a question relating to this very Court is involved.

( 5 ) WE, therefore, propose to deal with the matter in a somewhat different way. The Constitution provides the manner in which officers and servants of the High Court have to be appointed. Article 229 states that such persons have to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer as he may direct. The proviso to Art. 229 (1), which does not apply to the facts of this case, is to the effect that the Governor of a State may by rule require that a person who is not already attached to the Court may only be appointed after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. Article 229 (2) provides that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice for this purpose. Rules have actually been made and they have been placed before us for consideration.

( 6 ) THERE is some suggestion in the petition that the