S. Muralidhar, J.

Introduction

1. Five promotee Private Secretaries (‘PSs’) of this Court have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the High Court and 13 of their colleague PSs who are direct recruits (‘DRs’) essentially questioning the notification dated 28th March 2009 issued by the High Court that confirms the Petitioners as well as Respondents 2 to 14 as PSs with effect from 20th March 2009. An incidental challenge is laid to the constitutional validity of Rule 5A of the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 (‘Seniority Rules’) as well as to an order dated 12th October 2009 whereby the technical resignations tendered by the DR PSs from the previous posts held by them were accepted, treating them as fresh recruits under the 75% DR quota for the post of PSs.

2. The essential grievance of the Petitioners, i.e., the five promotee PSs, is that they should have been confirmed substantively as PSs with effect from 17th February 2007, the date from which they were declared as having satisfactorily completed their probation. This in turn will make them senior to the DR PSs who are Respondents 2 to 14.

3. In the judgment that follows, this Court holds that the reliefs claimed cannot be granted and that the orders under challenge as well as Rule 5A of the Seniority Rules do not suffer from legal or constitutional infirmity.

The conspectus of the applicable Rules

4. The service conditions of the staff of this Court are governed by the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’). Seniority is governed by the Seniority Rules.

5. Prior to 8th February 2006, the 1972 Rules stipulated that the vacant posts in the cadre of PSs were to be filled in the following manner:

(i) 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in terms of the seniority list of Senior Personal Assistants (‘SPAs’) and

(ii) 75% by selection on merit on the basis of written test and interview, from the categories mentioned in Column 3 (b) (i).

In the event that the requisite number of candidates do not qualify for selection on merit in terms of provision of clause 3 (b) (i), the vacancy was to filled up by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview.

6. On 8th February 2006, 1972 Rules were amended by providing that the post of PS would be filled up 25% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from the seniority list of SPAs of Class III and 75% by direct recruitment by way of selection on merit on the basis of written test and interview.

7. Prior to the above amendment which came to be notified on 15th February 2006, Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules provided as follows:

“5. Joint inter se seniority of confirmed employees in categories of equal status posts shall be determined according to their dates of confirmation in any of those categories.

Provided that if two or more employees are confirmed on the same date in categories of equal status their joint inter se seniority in categories of equal status posts shall remain the same as it was before their confirmation.”

8. By the notification dated 15th February 2006 Rule 5A was inserted in the Seniority Rules and it read as under:

“5A. The inter se seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees shall be determined in order of rotation of vacancies between the direct recruits and promotees based on the quota of vacancies reserved for both categories provided that the first vacancy will be filled by a promotee and the next three vacancies by direct recruits and so on and so forth.

Provided further the slot reserved for a direct recruit in the seniority list shall not be assigned to promotee even if there is delay in recruitment process and appointment of a direct recruit against their quota of 75%.”

9. Consequently, as far as PSs are concerned, in addition to the quota of 25%: 75% as far as recruitment was concerned, there was a 'rota' put in place for arranging the s