Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Biren Vaishnav, J.
Pareshkumar Mansukhlal Trivedi - Petitioner
Versus
Principal District Judge & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 15132, 10512, 14213, 16628, 17936, 19031, 23293 of 2017
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Bombay Recruitment Rules, 1957 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 235 - Petitioners are working as Peons establishment of District Court in different districts - They are claiming their right of being promoted as Bailiffs - Petitioners names were also sent for consideration for promotion - Petitioner joined services as Peon in year - On then State of Bombay issued a Government Resolution by which it was decided to frame an Advisory Committee of District Judges for making appointments to services in judicial department - Petitioner though became eligible in year and passed his examination in no promotion orders were issued - Several requisitions were sent and consent of petitioner was sought and granted but no action was taken though petitioner was eligible for promotion - Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of Courts Rules were published - Rule stipulated will come into force on date of publication - Delay / inaction on part of authorities has virtually jeopardized right of petitioner leading to foreclose his right of promotion forever - Hence rules in vogue when vacancies arose to be followed - Held, Court order accepted recommendation of Pay Commission Report in and therefore provisions made in Pay Commission Report is applicable in case of present petitioners qualification required for promotion for post of Bailiff in feeder cadre in standard - So far as State of Gujarat is concerned as per Pay Commission Report posts of Bailiff are required to be filled up for feeder cadre of Peons and filled up by way of direct recruitment -Court observations made here in above and law laid down by Humble Supreme Court we are of considered opinion that Petitioner has not made out a case for striking down rules notified on post of Technical Assistant and Assistant Radio Engineer - Rules are neither volatile of Articles Constitution of India nor are they arbitrary oppressive or unreasonable - There is no illegality in orders passed by Tribunal preferred by Petitioner has been dismissed - Court uphold order passed by Tribunal and consequently writ petition is dismissed before parting with judgment are of opinion that if State deems just and proper a separate quota to category to which Petitioner belongs taking into consideration their higher qualification be carved out for promotion to post of Technical Assistants Petitions dismissed (Para 13)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner joined services as Peon in the year 1999. On 26.12.1957, the then State of Bombay issued a Government Resolution by which it was decided to frame an Advisory Committee of District Judges for making appointments to Class-III and Class-IV services in the judicial department.
Finding of the Court:
Court order accepted recommendation of Pay Commission Report in and therefore provisions made in Pay Commission Report is applicable in case of present petitioners qualification required for promotion for post of Bailiff in feeder cadre in standard - So far as State of Gujarat is concerned as per Pay Commission Report posts of Bailiff are required to be filled up for feeder cadre of Peons and filled up by way of direct recruitment -Court observations made here in above and law laid down by Humble Supreme Court we are of considered opinion that Petitioner has not made out a case for striking down rules notified on post of Technical Assistant and Assistant Radio Engineer - Rules are neither volatile of Articles Constitution of India nor are they arbitrary oppressive or unreasonable - There is no illegality in orders passed by Tribunal preferred by Petitioner has been dismissed - Court uphold order passed by Tribunal and consequently writ petition is dismissed before parting with judgment are of opinion that if State deems just and proper a separate quota to category to which Petitioner belongs taking into consideration their higher qualification be carved out for promotion to post of Technical Assistants.
Result: Petitions dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are working as Peons under the establishment of the District Court in different districts. They are claiming their right of being promoted as Bailiffs. In some cases, the petitioners' names were also sent for consideration for promotion. The case of the petitioners is that on coming into force of the new Rules of 2017 (“The Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017), their right to promotion to the posts of Bailiffs have been taken away.
Facts of Special Civil Application No.15132 of 2017:
2. The petitioner joined services as Peon in the year 1999. On 26.12.1957, the then State of Bombay issued a Government Resolution by which it was decided to frame an Advisory Committee of District Judges for making appointments to Class-III and Class-IV services in the judicial department.
3. The petitioner, though became eligible in the year 2002 and passed his CCC examination in 2006, no promotion orders were issued. Several requisitions were sent and consent of the petitioner was sought and granted but no action was taken though the petitioner was eligible for promotion.
4. By the impugned order dated 12.7.2017, the request of the petitioner was declined on the ground that he did not possess the qualification of Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the new Rules.
5. Vide a notification dated 10.4.2017, Rules called “The Non-Judicial Officers and Staff of the Courts (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2017” were published. Rule 2 stipulated will come into force on date of publication.
6. Ms.Harshal N. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:
Rules prevailing at that time though binding were not followed strictly and process of promotion were delayed which has resulted into stalling of promotion forever. Rules of 2017 operate prospectively and petitioner was eligible before such Rules came into force.
Delay / inaction on the part of authorities has virtually jeopardized right of petitioner leading to foreclose his right of promotion forever. Hence, rules in vogue when vacancies arose to be followed.
Draft rules though directed to be acted upon, in many districts, cases were considered as per old rules and promotions were released. Equity demands similar treatment to Class-IV employees who have been waiting for their turn past two decades.
Unamended / old rules are applicable to the vacancies arising prior to it.
Employees while having no indefeasible right to claim promotion, should not be deprived of same only because of delay / inaction of authority or for want of proper rules at the behest of employer.
7. In support of the submissions, she relied on the following decisions:
Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1682.
Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh reported in AIR 2000 SC 2767
Y.V. Rangaiah v. J.Sreenivasa Rao reported in 1983(3) SCC 284
State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal reported in 1997 (10) SCC 419
Arjun Singh Rathore v. B.N. Chaturvedi reported in 2007(11) SCC 605
Kulwant Singh v. Daya Ram reported in 2015(3) SCC 177
Ganpatlal Patel v. High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.3524/2019.
Mayank Bhagwandas Shethwala v. High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.6231/2018 dated 24.6.2019.
Raghunath Sinh v. Government of Bihar reported in AIR 1988 SC 1033
She would submit that vacancies had occurred prior to the Rules of 2017 having come into force and the petitioner's case should be considered in light of such facts and disqualified on the basis that the new Rules had come into force.
8. Mr.V.K. Joshi, learned counsel appeared in the following petitions and gave a tabular details of the service history of each petitioner in petitions where he is appearing which is reproduced hereunder:
| NO. | SCA NO. | DETAILS OF THE CASE |
| 1 | 10512/2017 One Petitioner District Court, Bhavnagar | (I) |
SupremeToday
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
