1979 Supreme(Raj) 317

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.K.Mal Ladha, S.C.Agrawal, JJ.
Poonam Chand - Appellant
Versus
The District Judge And Ors - Respondent
D.B. Civil writ petition No. 369 of 1978.
Decided On : 10-05-1979

Headnote:

The High Court has the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. The control which is vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution cannot be confined to the judicial service only and it also extends to the subordinate staff attached to the Civil Courts which are subordinate to the High Court. The conferment of a right of appeal against an order passed by the District Judge with regard to an employee in the ministerial establishment of the District Court, to a person or authority, other than the High Court impinges on the control vested in the High Court, it must be held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 in so far as they provide for an appeal being filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the staff employed in the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court in a service matter, are unconstitutional and void being inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution whereby control over the said staff has been vested exclusively in the High Court.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Shri Poonam Chand, was an employee in the Ministerial Establishment of the Court of District Judge at Jodhpur. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14th April, 1954 and on 23rd Ageist, 1969 he was selected as Assistant. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Reader permanently on 25th July, 1970. Respondent No. 3, Shri Sheo Datt Harsh, was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the then Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur on 7th March, 1946 and he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 4th July 1951 and on 25th July, 1970 he was confirmed in the grade of Reader with effect from 25th July 1970. The petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 1st October, 1947 in the then Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14th April, 1954 and he was promoted as Assistant with effect from 1st November, 1969. On 15th April, 1978, the District Judge passed another order, wherein he has considered the submissions made by respondent No. 3 in the representation submitted by him against the order promoting the petitioner on the post of Munsarim and has given reasons why respondent No. 3 was passed over and was not promoted and the petitioner was promoted on the said post.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court has the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. The control which is vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution cannot be confined to the judicial service only and it also extends to the subordinate staff attached to the Civil Courts which are subordinate to the High Court. The conferment of a right of appeal against an order passed by the District Judge with regard to an employee in the ministerial establishment of the District Court, to a person or authority, other than the High Court impinges on the control vested in the High Court, it must be held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 in so far as they provide for an appeal being filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the staff employed in the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court in a service matter, are unconstitutional and void being inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution whereby control over the said staff has been vested exclusively in the High Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary? 2. Whether the control which is vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution can be confined to the judicial service only? 3. Whether the conferment of a right of appeal against an order passed by the District Judge with regard to an employee in the ministerial establishment of the District Court, to a person or authority, other than the High Court impinges on the control vested in the High Court? 4. Whether the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 in so far as they provide for an appeal being filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the staff employed in the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court in a service matter, are unconstitutional and void being inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution whereby control over the said staff has been vested exclusively in the High Court?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court has the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. The control which is vested in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution cannot be confined to the judicial service only and it also extends to the subordinate staff attached to the Civil Courts which are subordinate to the High Court. The conferment of a right of appeal against an order passed by the District Judge with regard to an employee in the ministerial establishment of the District Court, to a person or authority, other than the High Court impinges on the control vested in the High Court, it must be held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 in so far as they provide for an appeal being filed before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by the staff employed in the ministerial establishment of the Civil Courts subordinate to the High Court in a service matter, are unconstitutional and void being inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 235 of the Constitution whereby control over the said staff has been vested exclusively in the High Court.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed & the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by and the order dated 22nd April, 1978 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur are set aside. The representation dated 3rd April, 1978 submitted by the respondent No. 3 against the order dated 29th March, 1976 should be treated as an appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules and it should be considered and disposed of on that basis. The parties are left to bear their own costs in thin writ petition.