REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1405 OF 2007

CMD/Chairman, B.S.N.L. and others

..

Appellants

-versus-

Mishri Lal and others

..

Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2008

Union of India and others

..

Appellants

-versus-

Pushpawati Singh

..

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

Civil Appeal No. 1405 of 2007

1.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order

dated 16.12.2005 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73843 of 2005 of the

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.

1

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

The respondents 1 to 9 herein, filed a writ petition before the High

Court praying for quashing of the Recruitment Rules 2005 as well as the

letters by which the writ petitioners were told to appear in the Limited

Internal Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Raj Bhasha

Adhikari AD(OL) which was to be held under the supervision of the CGMT

UP(East), Circle , Lucknow as well as issuing a writ of mandamus

restraining the appellants herein from interfering in the working of the

respondents as AD(OL) on their respective posts and to continue to pay

them their salaries. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the

impugned judgment and hence this appeal.

4.

It was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that the

impugned Raj Bhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules 2005 were quashed by

the High Court without service of any notice of the writ petition on the

appellants (respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition) and that too at the

preliminary stage of admission on the basis of an alleged submission of a

counsel who did not have any authority and Vaklatnama in his favour by the

appellants and who had not been given any instruction to appear on their

behalf. We agree with this submission.

2

5.

When rules are challenged it is necessary to have the matter gone into

in depth by inviting a counter affidavit and examining the matter in detail.

A summary disposal of a writ petition by allowing it without even calling for

a counter affidavit and quashing the rules, in our opinion, is totally against

any established procedure of law.

6.

Apart from the above, on merits also we are of the opinion that the

writ petition deserved to be dismissed and was wrongly allowed.

7.

Article 343(1) of the Constitution of India states that the official

language of the Union of India shall be Hindi in Devnagari script. To fulfill

the mandate of this provision the Government of India, Ministry of

Communications, decided to have a Hindi Cell in each Central Government

department and Central Government instrumentality with the object of

promoting progressive use of Hindi in the official notings and

communications. Accordingly, it framed Rules in 1983 under Article 309 of

the Constitution. In 1983, there were 43 posts of Hindi Officers in the

department and it was provided that 50% of the posts will be filled up by

direct recruitment, 30% by promotion and 20% by transfer on deputation.

The essential qualification for holding the post was Masters Degree in the

concerned subject and 5 years’ experience of teaching, research, writing or

3

journalism in Hindi. As far as promotions were concerned, it was stipulated

that Hindi Translator Grade-I with 3 years’ regular service in the grade could

be selected by a Departmental Promotion Committee in consultation with

the Union Public Service Commission.

8.

In April 1994, the Department of Telecommunications decided that

since the subordinate units (Telecom Circles) were facing difficulties in

filling up the posts as per the existing provisions, the posts of Hindi Officers

may be filled up amongst the cadre of Hindi Translator Grade-I/Grade-

II/Grade-III with 3, 5 or 8 years’ service respectively in the Circle/District

concerned, failing which the posts may be