1. The employees of the Madras High Court are governed by the Madras High Court Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), which have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India relating to their salaries, allowances, leave and pensions. These Rules came into force on 1.1.1955 and have been amended from time to time.

2. In this batch of writ petitions except one (W.P. No.21542 of 2013), the employees seek to assail the amendments to the Rules made qua promotions to the post of Assistant Registrar and thereafter. The effect of the two amendments which are in question is that, while earlier for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and upwards, the requirement was to hold a Law Degree of any University, the insertion of a proviso in the year 2007 sought to qualify persons having a non-practising degree, i.e., which is not recognised by the Bar Council of India, upto the post of the Joint Registrar, thought not to the post of Registrar (Assistant Registrar to Deputy Registrar to Joint Registrar). The second proviso sought to restrict such persons with non-practising degree only to 25% of the promotions to be made. It appears that this did not really trouble the employees as none chose to challenge this amendment of the year 2007. However, what aggravated the situation and triggered off a spate of writ petitions was the subsequent amendment made in July-2013, whereby the ratio between employees with regular law degrees recognised by the Bar Council as against those holding non-practising degrees was sought to be reversed, making it 75% for employees with non-practising degree and 25% for those with the practising degree. This amendment is apparently based on the numerical strength of the two categories of employees, where the number of people on the rolls of the High Court with the qualifying degree (B.L.) was much smaller as compared to those with the non-practising degree (B.A.L.). This deprived the benefit of promotion to persons who are holding the B.L. Degree, in view of the two quotas reserved.

3. The singular writ petition, W.P. No.21542 of 2013, is predicated on the rationale that since there is provision made for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar from among the practising members of the Bar, the vacancies could not have been filled up without even that process being initiated simultaneously. Adverting to the definition of law degree as contained in Rule 1(g)(A) of the Service Rules, it is contended that the first and second proviso to Rule 6(2)(b) carves out an exception and defines law degree to mean a law degree recognised by an Indian University, but not recognized by the Bar Council of India. It is argued that the aforesaid proviso to the Rule totally alters the definition so as to nullify the definition itself. According to the learned counsel, a degree of Bachelor of Academic Law can never be considered to be a Degree of Bachelor of Law and thus, there is no question of it being recognized or not recognized by the Bar Council of India. It is urged that the degree of Bachelor of Academic Law not recognized by the Bar Council and obtained through correspondence course and the degree of Bachelor of Laws obtained through regular studies and recognized by the Bar Council of India cannot be treated equal and hence, the impugned Rule that treats both the degrees equal deserves to be declared a nullity.

4. The relevant rule which has been called into question for purposes of convenience is being reproduced as under:-

“6. Qualifications.-

(a) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service in categories 1 to 5 of Division I, unless he (1) is an Advocate or Attorney or is duly qualified for admission as an Advocate or Attorney of the High Court; or

(2) holds a Law Degree of any of the Universities in the Indian Union and a B.A. or B.Sc. or B.Com. or B.A. (Honours) or