SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The petitioner joined the services of the Delhi High Court as an LDC on 21.02.1979 and attained her promotions from time to time right till the post of Deputy Registrar on 01.11.2006.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that when her case for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar was considered along with other candidates, she was superseded and not appointed as a Joint Registrar despite being the senior most Deputy Registrar. The representations made by the petitioner against her supersession were also rejected. However, the petitioner, while her representations were rejected, was appointed as a Joint Registrar against a vacancy vide order dated 03.06.2009 with effect from 21.03.2009. Thus, the only question which is required to be considered in the present case is the date from which the petitioner is required to be treated as having joined the post of Joint Registrar and whether her supersession was valid.

3. We may note that learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the petitioner does not claim any monetary benefits for the period she has not worked in the post of Joint Registrar, but she seeks appointment from the date of earlier consideration for all other benefits and for her to be shown senior to R-2 and R-3, who were appointed as Joint Registrar superseding her.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that the conditions of service of the staff on the Establishment of this Court are governed by the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 („the said Rules? for short) which have been issued under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The appointments to the various posts as specified in Schedule II to the said Rules are to be made by the Hon?ble Chief Justice as per the mode of appointment and qualifications provided in the said Schedule to the said Rules. The post of Joint Registrar is to be filled up in the following manner:

“a. By selection on merit on deputation from Delhi Higher Judicial Service or Delhi Judicial Service (Selection Grade) Or b. By selection on the basis of merit cum seniority from Officer of category 2 (Deputy Registrars) of Class-I mentioned in Schedule-I.” In the present case we are concerned with clause (b) as all the concerned people are already officers working in the High Court as Deputy Registrar.

5. Rule 11 of the said Rules read as under:

“11. Application of Central Government Servants Service Rules –

In respect of all such matters regarding the conditions of service of Court servants for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Central Government servants shall regulate the conditions of service of the Court servants subject to such modifications, variations or exception, if any, in the said rules, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, specify. Provided that the Registrar and Joint/Deputy Registrar belonging to Delhi Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service respectively, shall be governed by the rules applicable to the said service.”

6. The gravamen of the case of the petitioner is based on the aforesaid Rule and OM No.35034/7/97-Estt(D) dated 08.02.2002 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The aforesaid Rule provides for application of the norms applicable to Central Government servants where no provision or insufficient provisions have been made under the said Rules. The OM No.35034/7/97-Estt(D) dated 08.02.2002 seeks to traverse a slightly different path in respect of appointment based on merit-cum- seniority (which is applicable to the post of a Joint Registrar) inasmuch as it prescribes a change whereby once the persons to be appointed on the said basis meet the benchmark, no supersession in selection/promotion is permissible. The petitioner thus pleads that it is no one?s case that she did not meet the benchmark, but that R-2 and R-3 were appointed to the post of Jo