Gauhati High Court Chief Justice Has Absolute Discretion Over Staff Appointments Across Principal Seat and Benches, Rules High Court - 2025-04-26

Gauhati High Court Rules Chief Justice Holds Full Discretion Over Staff Appointments Across Principal Seat and Benches

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) Employees Association challenging the inclusion of Joint Registrars from the court's outlying permanent benches in the selection process for the Registrar (Establishment) post at the Principal Seat.

In a judgment delivered on March 12, 2025, Justice DevashisBaruah upheld the absolute discretion of the Chief Justice in appointing officers and servants of the High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court service is unified across the Principal Seat and its permanent benches.

The ruling came in response to a writ petition (WP(C)/1009/2024) filed by the Principal Seat Employees Association, which contended that the Registrar (Establishment) post, created for the Principal Seat, should only be filled by incumbents from the Principal Seat based on past practice and convention. The Association challenged a notice dated February 22, 2024, which invited eligible candidates not only from the Principal Seat but also Joint Registrars from the Itanagar, Kohima, and Aizawl benches for an interview.

A connected petition (WP(C)/3024/2024) challenging the ad-hoc appointment of a Joint Registrar from the Itanagar bench as Registrar (Establishment) (in-Charge) became infructuous during the proceedings as the concerned officer was released from the charge and subsequently superannuated.

Petitioner's Contentions:

Mr. D. Das , learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, argued that: * The post was created specifically for the Principal Seat following the Association's request to improve representation in higher cadres. * A convention existed whereby this post was always filled from the Principal Seat. * Separate gradation lists are maintained for the Principal Seat and Permanent Benches, making it difficult to apply merit-cum-seniority if candidates are drawn from different lists. * Rule 17A of the Gauhati High Court Services Rules, 1967 only permits transfers, not appointments/promotions from Benches to the Principal Seat, and even lists outdated benches. * The number of candidates called for the interview exceeded the limit specified in a notification. * A Resolution dated February 16, 2024, by a Committee of Judges, which decided to include outlying bench staff, was made without being fully apprised of the post's creation history.

High Court's Response:

Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the Gauhati High Court, countered by submitting: * The Resolution dated February 16, 2024, approved by the Chief Justice, explicitly mandates filling the post from eligible Joint Registrars of both the Principal Seat and Outlying Benches, and this resolution was not challenged. * The post was created based on a proposal for workload management and included other posts, not solely due to the Association's demand for representation. * The feeder category (Joint Registrar cadre) was determined by the then Chief Justice (Acting) in an order dated August 13, 2015, later clarified by the February 16, 2024 resolution. * The Rules of 1967 define "High Court" and "Services" without distinguishing between the Principal Seat and Benches. * Article 229 of the Constitution and Rule 6(a) of the 1967 Rules vest absolute discretionary power in the Chief Justice for appointments and promotions of gazetted officers. * Rule 17A of the 1967 Rules permits transfers between the Principal Seat and Benches, and instances of such transfers were cited. * The slight relaxation in the number of candidates called for interview was due to an exceptional circumstance (a candidate's impending retirement).

The State respondents stated that the posts were created based on the High Court's proposal and placed at the disposal of the Chief Justice, acknowledging the matter falls within the Chief Justice's powers under Article 229.

Court's Analysis and Decision:

Justice Baruah 's judgment extensively analyzed the constitutional framework, particularly Articles 229, 202, 203, and 204, and the Rules of 1967. The Court noted that the Gauhati High Court serves four States (Assam, Nagaland , Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh) with a Principal Seat and permanent benches, forming a single common High Court.

Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Others and M. Gurumoorthi vs. Accountant General Assam and Nagaland & Others , the Court reiterated that Article 229 vests exclusive and supreme power in the Chief Justice regarding appointment, dismissal, transfer, and conditions of service of High Court staff to ensure the judiciary's independence.

The Court held that once a post is created, sanctioned, and placed at the Chief Justice's disposal, the method of filling it is within the Chief Justice's absolute discretion, subject to constitutional mandates (Articles 14 & 16) and the Rules. The Rules of 1967 do not differentiate staff based on whether they work at the Principal Seat or the Benches.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on past convention, stating that it cannot override constitutional provisions like Article 229. The argument regarding separate gradation lists was deemed to fall within the realm of "ifs and buts" at this stage.

Consequently, the Court found no legal impediment to the Chief Justice's decision, as reflected in the resolution dated February 16, 2024, to consider eligible Joint Registrars from all seats/benches for the Registrar (Establishment) post.

The writ petition WP(C)/1009/2024 was dismissed for lacking merit. WP(C)/3024/2024 was closed as infructuous. The judgment concludes by stating that the Chief Justice is now at liberty to proceed with the selection and appointment process for the Registrar (Establishment) post in accordance with the order dated August 13, 2015, read with the Resolution dated February 16, 2024.