THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) Employees Association And Anr - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 10 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 1009 / 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 214, 229, 231 - Gauhati High Court (the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh) Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967 - The case concerned the appointment of the Registrar (Establishment) of the Gauhati High Court and whether it should be filled exclusively from the Principal Seat or include candidates from Permanent Benches. The petitioners argued that the post should only be filled by incumbents from the Principal Seat, citing historical precedence and a lack of specific rules allowing for candidates from Outlying Benches. The court found that the Chief Justice has the discretion to appoint from both categories, as the Rules of 1967 do not specify a feeder category. The court ruled that the resolution dated 16.02.2024, allowing consideration of candidates from both the Principal Seat and Outlying Benches, was valid and did not conflict with established rules. (Paras 3 , 5 , 11 , 36 , 41 )
(B) Writ Petition - The petition WP(C) No.1009/2024 was dismissed for lacking merit, while WP(C) No.3024/2024 was closed as infructuous. The Chief Justice was permitted to proceed with the selection process for the Registrar (Establishment) post. (Paras 41 )
(C) Final Decision: The court concluded that the discretion of the Chief Justice in appointing officers is protected under Article 229 of the Constitution, ensuring independence and administrative control of the High Court. (Paras 30 , 41 )
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Mohammed, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 3; Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court assisted by Mr. P. P. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. None appears on behalf of the private respondents.
2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal as they are inter-connected.
3. The question involved in WP(C) No.1009/2024 is as to whether the post of Registrar (Establishment) which is a post created for the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court can only be filled up by incumbents from the Principal Seat or can also be filled up by incumbents from the Permanent Benches of the Gauhati High Court at Itanagar, Kohima and Aizawl?
4. To decide the said question, let this Court briefly take note of the facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions before this Court infra.
5. The post of Registrar (Establishment) along with other posts were sanctioned by the State of Assam on 10.08.2015. It is the case of the Petitioner No.1 which is an Association of Officers and Staff working in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Petitioner Association’) that at their request the post of Registrar (Establishment) was created. It is the specific case of the Petitioner Association that this very post of Registrar (Establishment) was all along filled up by incumbents from the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. However, a notice dated 22.02.2024 was issued by the Respondent No.5 whereby not only the eligible candidates from the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court were called for but also the Joint Registrars of the Outlying Benches were requested to appear in an interview fixed on 23.02.2024 for selection to the post of Registrar (Establishment). The Petitioner Association immediately thereupon, submitted a representation on 22.02.2024. But as there was no redressal of their grievances, WP(C) No.1009/2024 was filed. In this writ petition, the Petitioner Association not only sought for setting aside the notice dated 22.02.2024 but also sought for declaration that the post of Registrar (Establishment) should be restricted to the incumbent holding the post of Joint Registrar at the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court.
6. It is seen from the records that vide an order dated 23.02.2024, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order thereby permitting the interview process to be held on 23.02.2024 to proceed but directed that the final outcome of the interview process shall not be declared till 28.02.2024. It is further relevant to take note of that in view of the said order passed on 23.02.2024 by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Interview process which was initiated was deferred in as much as the Selection Committee was of the opinion that although there was no stay order with regard to the interview process, yet the propriety demands that the interview process should be deferred.
7. It is relevant to take note of that pursuant thereto on 24.05.2024, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court had entrusted Shri Prithwi Balay Dutta, Joint Registrar, Itanagar Permanent Bench to discharge the duties of the Registrar (Establishment) in-Charge w.e.f. 24.05.2024. This order dated 24.05.2024 is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition being WP(C) No.3024/2024. The edifice of the case of the Petitioners in the second writ petition is that the order dated 24.05.2024 was passed to circumvent the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in WP(C) No.1009/20
Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Others
M. Gurumoorthi vs. Accountant General Assam and Nagaland & Others
Renu and Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
The Chief Justice has the discretion to appoint the Registrar (Establishment) from both the Principal Seat and Permanent Benches, as the Rules of 1967 do not restrict this.
The Chief Justice has exclusive authority to set pay and service conditions for court employees under Article 229(2), and financial constraints cannot justify the refusal of approval for such determi....
The decision of the Administrative Committee to club the posts of Assistant Registrars (Legal) and the Stamp Reporter(s) for being considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Legal) by ....
The court ruled that a seniority condition in the appointment of a Court Officer does not prevent the incumbent's eligibility for promotion to a higher cadre, emphasizing that merit should prevail in....
The Chief Justice has the discretion to relax qualifications for appointment to the Secretary's post, and judicial review does not permit substituting the Chief Justice's discretion unless arbitrary.
The Chief Justice's recommendations for pay scales under Article 229 must be approved by the state unless there are strong reasons for refusal, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.