W.P.(C) 10159/2022

Page 1 of 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on :16.08.2022

+

W.P.(C) 10159/2022 and CM Nos. 29478/2022, 29480/2022 &

29481/2022

DHARMENDER JOSHI & ORS.

..... Petitioners

versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners

: Mr Tanmaya Mehta and Ms Mallika

B. Arora, Advocates.

For the Respondents

: Mr Gautam Narayan and Ms Asmita Singh,

Advocates.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

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’).

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003068

W.P.(C) 10159/2022

Page 2 of 22

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.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003068

W.P.(C) 10159/2022

Page 3 of 22

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 Cate