Bhandari, J.—These two Writ petitions have facts which are mostly common and the points of law that arise for decision are also the same. We, therefore, dispose of these Writ petitions together by this Judgment.

2. Both the petitioners, Shri Sukan Mal and Shri Parmatma Sharan are on the staff of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Their grievance is that when the posts of the Assistant Registrar and the Secretary to the Honble the Chief Justice fell vacant their claims for promotion were not properly considered and Shri Nathulal and Shri Jai Dayal who are Resp. Nos.4 & 5 in both the Writ Petitions were appointed, the former as the Asst. Registrar and the latter as the Secy, to the Honble the Chief Justice by orders dated 22.4.1961 mentioned in Documents Nos. II & III. In the opening part of their respective Writ petitions the petitioners have mentioned their educational qualifications and record of services in the High Court. Then they have alleged that both Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were much junior to them. They have also pointed out that there were other persons who were senior to these Respondents but their claims were also ignored. The contention of the petitioners are that in the matters of promotion and selection, the selective test must be based on some reasonable principle and should not be arbitrary and that the appointment of the Respondents to the respective posts referred to above was made only to give them undue preference. As a matter of fact no selection was ever made before these appointments and the cases of seventy employees including the petitioners who were senior to Respondent No. 5, and eight employees who were senior to Respondent No. 4 were not at all considered. It is also alleged that no procedure of any nature was followed in making these appointments. It is further alleged that the appointments were not in accordance with the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) framed under Art. 229(2) of the Constitution of India by the then Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan with the approval of the Rajpramukh of Rajasthan. The vires of these rules are also challenged. It is urged that Rule 10 was ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution being in derogation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution which provide for equality before law and equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the State. It was also urged that the appointment was mala fide, arbitrary and capricious for various reasons given in the Writ petitions. Besides Shri Nathulal and Shri Jai Dayal, the Honble the Chief Justice, the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and the State of Rajasthan were made parties to these Writ petitions, and in both Writ petitions, they are Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

3. Lengthy replies have been filed by Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in substance denying the main allegations of the petitioners and their right to seek relief in this Court by way of Writ Petition. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the Honble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan. It is mentioned in the reply that while making a selection for promotion to the post of the Assistant Registrar, the cases of several persons were considered and out of these persons the then Chief Justice who was the appointing authority found Shri Nathulal eligible for promotion as Assistant Registrar as the appointing authority was satisfied about his integrity and impartiality. The Registrar had also recommended him for promotion and by order dated the 22nd of April, 1961 he was promoted as Assistant Registrar. With respect to Shri Jai Dayal it is submitted that at that time he was discharging the duties of the Secretary to the then Chief Justice since May, 1959. On the recommendation made by the Registrar, the then Chief Justice himself passed the order of promoting Shri Jai Dayal by his order dated the 22nd of Apr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document