Point of Law: Merely because the notifications of the District Judiciary for Court Managers of District Courts as well as this Court were different, it cannot be said that the selection to the District Court was different and selection to the High Court was under Article 229 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Basant Balaji, J.

The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.32617 of 2019. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellants for the following reliefs :

“(i) declare that Ext. P12 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India takes in Court Managers of the District Courts and the High Court appointed pursuant to Exts. P1 to P5 and that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits flowing therefrom;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 1 and 3 to implement Ext. P12 order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by regularizing the petitioners herein in service;

(iii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading up to Ext. P19 and quashing the same;

(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”

3. The appellants were selected and appointed as Court Managers in this court on a temporary basis pursuant to notification dated 17.02.2014. The post of Court Managers in the High Court and District Courts were created pursuant to the recommendations of the 13th Finance Commission. Ext.P5 notification was issued on 17.02.2014 inviting applications from qualified Indian citizens for temporary appointment to the post of Court Managers in the High Court of Kerala, pursuant to which, the appellants applied for the post, and Ext.P6 rank list was brought into force exclusively for the High Court of Kerala. The 1st appellant was ranked No.1 and the 2nd appellant was ranked No.5. They were appointed on a temporary basis and later the tenure was extended from time to time for a successive one year each. By proceedings dated 25.2.2021, the appellants were terminated with effect from 26.2.2021. On the very same day, another official memorandum was also issued seeking willingness of the appellants for considering them for re-engagement as Court Managers on contract basis for a further period of one year with effect from 1.3.2021. On the basis of the willingness, an order was passed by the Registrar (General) appointing the appellants as Court Managers on contract basis with effect from 12.3.2021 and they executed agreement Annexures A11 and A12.

4. On 31.03.2017, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P11 order, according sanction for the creation of two posts of Court Managers in the High Court in the pay scale of Rs.42,500-87,000/- and granted an extension to the two temporary posts for the period from 01.04.2017 till the permanent posts of Court Managers is created and filled in accordance with the Rules. While so, I.A.No.279 of 2010 filed in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 before the Apex Court came up for consideration and the Apex Court passed Ext.P12 order.

Direction No.(ix) in the order reads as follows :

“(ix) Professionally qualified court managers, preferably with an MBA degree, must also be appointed to render assistance in performing the court administration. The said post of Court managers must be created in each judicial district for assisting Principal District and Sessions Judges. Such Court Managers would enable the District Judges to devote more time to their core work, that is, judicial functions. This, in turn, would enhance the efficiency of the District Judicial System. These court managers would also help in identifying the weaknesses in the court management systems and recommending workable steps under the supervision of their respective judges for rectifying the same. The services of any person already working as a Court Manager in any district should be regularised by the State Government as we are of the considered view that their assistance is needed for a proper administrative set up in a Court.”