Registry officials cannot decide case listings independently, ensuring transparency and preventing unfair practices; authority lies with the Chief Justice for case postings.

JUDGMENT :

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)

The Registry of this Court is aggrieved by certain observations made by the learned Judge in order dated 30.10.2019. The challenge in that writ petition was to Notification dated 17.09.2019 and inter-alia, the writ petitioners had sought a direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioners, on the basis of various grounds agitated by them.

2. In the course of the hearing of that writ petition, one of the points raised was that the procedure followed by the respondents amounted to unfair labour practices and thus as a consequence, the writ petition ought to have been listed before the Hon'ble Judge holding the 'Labour' portfolio.

3. At paragraphs 11 and 12, the learned Judge has discussed the issue thus:-

“11. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, made a submission that the High Court Registry, more specifically, the Appeal Examiners/Section Officers/Court Officers cannot list the matter as per their own decision and if there is a controversy regarding the relief sought for or the subject matter and the counsel, who filed the case, is disagreeing with the opinion of the Registry, then the Registry has no option but to prepare a note and place the same before the Hon'ble Judge concerned, holding the Roster, as per their opinion regarding the subject matter and obtain orders from the Hon'ble Judge. Still there is a controversy or otherwise, then the note shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Thus, the Registry officials cannot decide listing of the cases before a particular Court, as they cannot usurp the judicial powers in this regard. In the event of allowing the Registry officials to decide such matters, there is a likelihood of “bench hunting” by the litigants and there is a possibility of favouritism, nepotism and even the corrupt activities, cannot be ruled out.

12. It is unfortunate that the practice, as of now, prevailing in the Registry of High Court is that the officials of the Registry are taking decisions regarding listing of the cases with reference to the subject matter allotted to Courts. Undoubtedly, the Registry officials are empowered to form an opinion regarding the subject matter as well as the nature of the relief sought for while scrutinising case papers. However, such opinion should not lead to a judicial decision, so as to interfere with the allotment of Rosters. Thus, forming of an opinion is within the powers of the Registry officials and in the event of any disagreement or doubt, then the note must be prepared and the said note is to be placed before the concerned Judge as stated above. Accordingly, the Registrar-General, High Court of Madras is directed to issue suitable instructions to all the officials of the Registry, High Court of Madras, to ensure that the above procedures are followed in the event of any disagreement between the Registry officials and the counsel on record or there is any doubt regarding the subject matter or listing of the matters. It is made clear that the Registry officials are bound to follow such guidelines scrupulously, so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts with the litigants and to ensure transparency in the matter of dealing with the cases by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.’

4. At the time of admission of this Writ Appeal, interim orders have been passed on 03.09.2020 by the first Bench of this Court, in the following terms:

‘We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.

2. The contention raised is that the learned Single Judge in a matter relating to the posting of cases, as assigned under the roster by the Chief Justice, has made certain observations in paragraphs (11) and (12) on the premise as if the Registry of the High Court has transcended its authority and had accordingly adversely commented upon the procedure sought to be adopted. However, while making the observations, the learned Single Judge has is