1999 Supreme(Gau) 53

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Laishram Randhoni Debi -Appellant
Versus
Gauhati High Court -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 519 of 1998
Decided On : 11-02-1999

The Chief Justice's discretionary power under Rule 63A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. An employee with the requisite qualification and experience has the right to be considered for promotion.

Headnote:

PROMOTION - GAWHATI HIGH COURT RULES, 1967 - RULE 63A - CHIEF JUSTICE'S DISCRETIONARY POWER - SCOPE AND LIMITS - PROMOTION TO THE POST OF LIBRARIAN-CUM-RESEARCH OFFICER - ELIGIBILITY - CONSIDERATION OF EXPERIENCED EMPLOYEE WITH REQUISITE QUALIFICATION - ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench, challenged the legality and validity of an advertisement issued for direct recruitment to the post of Librarian-cum-Research Officer, excluding her from being an eligible candidate due to age limit. The petitioner had been working in the Library of the Court for over 17 years and possessed the requisite qualification as per the amended Rules. She had submitted representations for consideration of her promotion to the said post, but her case was not considered.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Chief Justice's discretionary power under Rule 63A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court found that the petitioner had the right to be considered for promotion and that there was no valid reason to fill up the post by direct recruitment. The Court also observed that the practice of filling up the post of Librarian-cum-Research Officer by promotion from within the institution was beneficial and that a new recruit may create problems.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Justice's discretionary power under Rule 63A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, can be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously? 2. Whether the petitioner had the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Librarian-cum-Research Officer? 3. Whether there was a valid reason to fill up the post by direct recruitment?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Chief Justice's discretionary power under Rule 63A of the Gauhati High Court Rules, 1967, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause, a registered society vs. Union of India & others, (1996) 6 SCC 530, which held that a discretionary power capable of being exercised arbitrarily is not permitted by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Court held that the petitioner had the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Librarian-cum-Research Officer. The Court observed that the petitioner had been working in the Library of the Court for over 17 years and possessed the requisite qualification as per the amended Rules. The Court also noted that the petitioner had submitted representations for consideration of her promotion to the said post, but her case was not considered. 3. The Court held that there was no valid reason to fill up the post by direct recruitment. The Court observed that the practice of filling up the post of Librarian-cum-Research Officer by promotion from within the institution was beneficial and that a new recruit may create problems.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned advertisement, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion along with other similarly situated persons at Imphal Bench.