JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioners state that they are working at different levels of the High Court Establishment and belong to the cadre of Administrative Officers (Judicial)/Superintendents (hereafter also referred to as ‘AOJ’) and cadre of Court Masters (hereafter also referred to as ‘CM’). The respondent nos. 2 to 84 are employed by this Court’s Establishment as Private Secretaries (hereafter also referred to as ‘PS’). The cadre of PS, AOJs and CM are feeder cadres for the post of Assistant Registrar (hereafter also referred to as ‘AR’).

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the ratio of 3:4 between the PS cadre and CM plus AOJ cadre, for promotion to the level of an Assistant Registrar (AR).

3. The post of AR is a selection post. The Delhi High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 were amended by a Notification dated 15.10.2007 to provide for the allocation of vacancies arising in the post of Assistant Registrar in the said ratio of 3:4 between the cadres (3 for the PS Cadre and 4 for the AOJ plus CM Cadre). Prior to the said notification, the quota for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar inter se PS cadre and AOJ plus CM cadre was 1:2. The petitioners claim that the amendment to the said ratio was premised on an incorrect assumption and inter se ratio was fixed earlier on the basis of the cadre strength. They state that the change in the ratio has stifled their promotion prospect and therefore, is liable to be set aside.

4. The petitioners also seek to challenge the creation of twenty additional posts of Private Secretaries, which were created in the year 2005. The petitioners claim that the posts of Private Secretaries to Senior Officers of this Court’s establishment were created on an erroneous assumption that the Senior Officers (Registrar), Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar were entitled to Private Secretaries in parity with officers of a similar rank with the Government of India. They claim that the post of Personal Assistant to the Registrar with the lower pay scale than Private Secretaries to Judges, existed and therefore, there was no requirement for creation of additional posts.

The petitioners are, essentially, aggrieved as creation of additional posts of Private Secretaries has increased the cadre strength of PS, which the petitioners claim would adversely affect their promotional prospect to the posts of Assistant Registrar.

Introduction

5. The first and foremost question to be considered is whether there is any merit in the challenge to the relevant Rules accepting the ratio of 3:4 (PS: AOJ plus CM cadre) on the basis of cadre strength for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

6. Rule 7 of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, as in force prior to 1995, provided for the mode of appointment to the posts as specified in the Schedules thereto. The appointment to the posts of an Assistant Registrar was required to be made by selection on merit from the concerned officers of categories 5, 6 and 7 of Clause I as mentioned in Schedule I to the said Rules. Category 5 is the Category of Superintendents, which was subsequently designated as Administrative Officers (Judicial); Category 6 comprised of CMs; and, Category 7 comprised of Private Secretaries (PS). These constituted the feeder cadres to the posts of AR. In terms of Rule 2(ii) of the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971, read with Schedule II these posts are considered as “equal status posts”.

7. On 02.07.1994, the Superintendents (AOJs) and Court Masters (CMs) submitted a Representation stating that there was an imbalance in promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar. At the material time, selection process had been initiated for filling up five vacancies that had arisen in the post of AR. The Superintendent (AOJs) and CMs apprehended that the said posts would be filled by promoting Private Secretaries. The said representation was considered by a Committee (J