Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1086
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
Mahjabeen Fatima Ahmad and Ors - Appellant
Versus
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Ors - Respondent
WRIT - A No. 12683 of 2015
Decided On : 28-05-2019
For the Appellant : Siddharth Khare, Ashok Khare, Ashutosh Srivastava
For the Respondent: Manish Goyal, Chandra Bhan Gupta, S.C.
Headnote:
Allahabad High Court Officers and Other Staff (Conditions Of Service And Conduct) Rules, 1976 – Rule 8(a), 41 & 45 – Constitution of India – Article 229 – Petitioners, who are Class -IV employees working in establishment of this Court, have preferred instant writ petition assailing promotion exercise undertaken by High Court for appointment of Routine Grade Clerks – Principal challenge procedure for promotion as adopted by respondents, with petitioners contending that promotion effected on basis of merit as obtained by candidates in competitive examination and not on principle of inter se seniority of candidates, norm which was ultimately adopted and implemented by High Court –Whether radical deviation from statutory provision was saved by Rule 45, even if it be assumed for time being that Chief Justice could, in exercise of powers conferred by this Rule, mandate or permit procedure in violation of specific provision made in respect of subject in question under 1976 Rules – Held, Promotion of Class IV employees to post of Routine Grade Clerks was liable to considered and effected on basis of merit of candidates as adjudged in competitive examination – It becomes pertinent to note that High Court never urged before Court in those proceedings that promotion was effected on basis of seniority – Denial of promotion to petitioners by way of impugned action clearly arbitrary and not sustained – Promoting private respondents quashed – Since merit position of petitioners is undisputed, they entitled to granted promotion on post of Routine Grade Clerks with effect and placed in that cadre as per their overall merit position – While this order not entitle them to claim salary and emoluments of promoted post with retrospective effect, they entitled to all other consequential benefits – Petition allowed. (Paras: 40 & 41)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, who are Class -IV employees working in establishment of this Court, have preferred instant writ petition assailing promotion exercise undertaken by High Court for appointment of Routine Grade Clerks – Principal challenge procedure for promotion as adopted by respondents, with petitioners contending that promotion effected on basis of merit as obtained by candidates in competitive examination and not on principle of inter se seniority of candidates, norm which was ultimately adopted and implemented by High Court –Whether radical deviation from statutory provision was saved by Rule 45, even if it be assumed for time being that Chief Justice could, in exercise of powers conferred by this Rule, mandate or permit procedure in violation of specific provision made in respect of subject in question under 1976 Rules.
Findings of the court:
Promotion of Class IV employees to post of Routine Grade Clerks was liable to considered and effected on basis of merit of candidates as adjudged in competitive examination – It becomes pertinent to note that High Court never urged before Court in those proceedings that promotion was effected on basis of seniority – Denial of promotion to petitioners by way of impugned action clearly arbitrary and not sustained – Promoting private respondents quashed – Since merit position of petitioners is undisputed, they entitled to granted promotion on post of Routine Grade Clerks with effect and placed in that cadre as per their overall merit position – While this order not entitle them to claim salary and emoluments of promoted post with retrospective effect, they entitled to all other consequential benefits.
Result: Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
1. The Court has heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava and Sri Siddharth Khare on behalf of the petitioners. Sri Manish Goel appeared for the High Court. The private respondents were represented by Sri C.B. Gupta learned counsel on record who, however, stated that he had no instructions. No other counsel appeared on behalf of these respondents.
2. The petitioners, who are Class -IV employees working in the establishment of this Court, have preferred the instant writ petition assailing a promotion exercise undertaken by the High Court for appointment of Routine Grade Clerks. The principal challenge is to the procedure for promotion as adopted by the respondents, with the petitioners contending that promotion was to be effected on the basis of merit as obtained by candidates in a competitive examination and not on the principle of inter se seniority of candidates, the norm which was ultimately adopted and implemented by the High Court.
3. Post the order of the Court permitting amendment of the reliefs claimed and as the petition stood when finally heard, challenge is laid to the following:-
(a) The order of the Chief Justice dated 30 July 2014 approving the decision of the Recruitment Committee dated 22 July 2014 stipulating the norm for selection to be the inter se seniority of candidates;
(b) Resolution of the Recruitment Committee dated 12 September 2014 reiterating the above principle for selection
(c) Order of the Chief Justice dated 23 September 2014 approving the resolution of the Recruitment Committee dated 22 August 2014 rejecting the objection of Class IV employees to seniority being made the criteria for selection;
(d) Office Memorandum of 8 October 2014 communicating the decision of the Chief Justice of 23 September 2014;
(e) Office Memorandum of 13 January 2015 apprising the petitioners of the rejection of similar objections by the Chief Justice by his order of 10 January 2015, and
(f) The promotion order dated 30 January 2015 made in favour of the private respondents.
4. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions addressed it would be relevant to notice the following essential facts. On 18 January 2013, the Establishment Section of the Court issued a notice [the original recruitment notice] inviting applications from Class-IV employees of the Court having 5 years of regular, continuous and satisfactory service for promotion as Routine Grade Clerks. The notice stated that selection would be made on the basis of a written examination and interview. It further provided that the written examination would comprise of one Question Paper divided into two Parts namely General Knowledge and an Essay in Hindi. Both the parts were allocated 15 marks each. The notice further provided that candidates would be assessed in an interview and thereafter on the strength of their character roll entries for which 10 marks each were allocated. Merit, in terms of this notice, was to be assessed on the basis of marks obtained by each candidate across the different components of the evaluation process comprising of written examination, interview and the assessment of character rolls. The petitioners are stated to have applied in response to this notice issue by the Court.
5. From the disclosures made in the Counter Affidavit, it appears that before any further steps in pursuance of the notice of 18 January 2013 could be taken, the Recruitment Committee met on 22 July 2014 and took the following decision:
“The Committee has perused the office note dated 21.07.2014 of S.O. Establishment, qua promotion of class IV employees to the Seventeen (17) posts of RGC. It was resolved that the procedure of such promotion be as follows
* A written examination may be conducted comprising of 50 maximum marks on objective type questions with multiple choice answers.
* A candidate, who has been awarded adverse entry or has been punished in l
