AMENDMENT TO RULE 14(V) OF THE RAJASTHAN DISTRICT COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT RULES, 1986, DOES NOT EXCLUDE STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I AND PERSONAL ASSISTANT CUM EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT FROM THE ZONE OF CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SENIOR MUNSARIM IN THE GENERAL CADRE.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these writ petitions have arisen from different judgeship of District & Sessions Judge of Rajasthan i.e. Bharatpur, Sawai Madhopur and Bundi, but give rise to a common question of legal importance as to whether under Rule 14(v) read with Rule 5 of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter “the Rules of 1986”) as amended vide notification dated 19.07.2017, Stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistant cum Executive Assistant, who belong to Stenographer cadre are excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Senior Munsarim in the general cadre? According to petitioners, in Rule 14(v) of the amended Rules of 1986, only Stenographers Grade II & III from the stenographer cadre have been included to be eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, which is a post of general cadre and therefore, it should be construed that in the statutory Rules, Stenographer Grade I and Personal Assistant cum Executive Assistant are not eligible and not entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim and, with such analogy, it has been jointly prayed by the petitioners in their respective petitions that Stenographer Grade-I and Personal Assistant cum Executive Assistant be declared excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim.

2. In the beginning, it has been pointed out that similar controversy arose in several other judgeships of District & Sessions Judge of Rajasthan and many writ petitions before Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur came to be instituted, wherein the similar issue cropped up and came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and bunch of writ petitions were decided vide common judgment dated 24.01.2023 in lead case SBCWP No.3994/2019, Rajesh Vyas Vs. District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur. It has been submitted that in the judgment dated 24.01.2023, passed by the Coordinate Bench, a view has been taken that although amended Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986 specifies only Stenographers Grade II & III, but the same are mere illustrative and cannot be construed to clear and unambiguous exclusion of the Stenographers Grade-I from the zone of consideration and eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim and thus by taking such purposive interpretation of Rule 14(v), all writ petitions were dismissed and the issue has been decided against petitioners. A copy of judgment dated 24.01.2023 has been placed on record. A perusal of judgment indicates that the Coordinate Bench, after adverting to the Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1986, pre-amended & post-amended, has decided the issue. In order to see the interpretation and reasoning assigned by the Coordinate Bench to Rule 14(v), to arrive at such a conclusion, it would be better to reproduce the relevant portion of judgment hereunder :

“15. This Court, at the outset, observes that the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission, were for the welfare of the officers/officials of the staff of the Subordinate Courts, and were implemented retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2003, and the related notification was issued on 19.07.2017, and the same was preceded by the notification dated 02.09.2016 pertaining to the revised pay scale(s) for the posts, amongst others, the post in question i.e. Senior Munsarim, in light of the recommendations of the Commission.

15.1 Indisputably, the recommendations, being implemented with retrospective effect i.e. 01.04.2003, enabled the staff of the Subordinate Courts to derive fruits therefrom in the form of, amongst others, financial benefits etc.

15.2 The amendment in the Rules, as per learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General, remained unassailed till date, and such factual submission has not been disputed on behalf of any of the petitioners herein.

16. Apart from the above,