ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. On a reference being made by the learned Single Judge, under Rule 9, Chapter 1 of High Court Rules and Orders in M.P., this petition has come up before us for deciding the question whether there is no impediment in impleading the Chief Justice of High Court of M.P. as a Respondent who acts as an Appellate Authority under Rule 20 (c) of the High Court of M.P., Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'). 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1975 in the establishment of High Court of M.P. who after rendering service of about seven years was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in the year 1992 vide order dated 19.12.92. The Petitioner averred that she contested the election of the Office-bearer for the post of Secretary and was elected as Secretary of the M.P. Uchha Nyayalaya Karamchari Sangh. Since then the Petitioner was actively participating in ventilating the grievances of her colleague employees before the officers of the Registry of the High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner by issuing charge-sheet dated 23rd November, 1995 enclosing allegations of statements Annexure P-5. In the enquiry the charges leveled against the Petitioner were found proved, therefore, vide order dated 20.2.97 Annexure P-11, the Petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk under Rule 10 (vi) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The Petitioner aggrieved of this order of punishment preferred an appeal Annexure P-12 under Clause (c) of Rule 20 of the Rules to the Appellate Authority, I.e., the Chief Justice. Vide Annexure P-13, dated 19th March, 1997, the Petitioner was communicated that her appeal has been dismissed by the Chief Justice on 27.2.1997. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which was also dismissed by the Chief Justice on 28.6.1997 communication of which was sent by memo dated 3rd September, 1997 Annexure P-14. Vide Annexure P-13, dated 19th March, 1997, the Petitioner was communicated that her appeal has been dismissed by the Chief Justice on 27.2.1997. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a mercy appeal which was also dismissed by the Chief Justice on 28.6.1997 communication of which was sent by memo dated 3rd September, 1997 Annexure P-14. The Petitioner thereafter challenged the order of reversion and the order of the Appellate Authority by the instant petition and claimed the relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 20.2.97, Annexure P-11, passed by the Registrar General, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur and orders dated 18.3.97 Annexure P-13 and dated 3.9,97 Annexure P-14, passed by the Appellate Authority, the Respondent No. 2. When the petition came up for hearing on admission, the Petitioner contended that the Respondent No. 2 has been impleaded as an Appellate Authority who has exercised the powers under Rule 20 (c) of the Rules, hence, there is no impediment in impleading him as a party. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the contention raised is of importance, hence, referred the question for deciding the same by the Bench constituted of two Judges. 3. Shri M. Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Respondent No. 2 under Artcile 229 (1) of the Constitution of India in exercise of his constitutional functions appoints officers and servants of the High Court at the expenses of the High Court, while under Clause (c) of Rule 20 of the Rules, he acts as an Appellate Authority. Therefore, even if there is no list between the Petitioner and the Chief Justice, the Appellate Authority has to be impleaded as a party as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority merges in the order of the Appellate Authority. As the relief of quashment of order of Appellate Authority has been prayed for, therefore, it is necessary to implead not only the Primary Authority but also the Appellate Authority as a party to the petition. Otherwise the petition will be incompetent. Reliance was placed on Udit Narayan Singh Malpaharla v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. ( AIR 1963 SC 786 ), Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. ( AIR 1964 SC 477 ), and Naziruddin Sirajuddin v. Lawale and Ors. (AIR 1956 Nag. 65). 4. Otherwise the petition will be incompetent. Reliance was placed on Udit Narayan Singh Malpaharla v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. ( AIR 1963 SC 786 ), Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. ( AIR 1964 SC 477 ), and Naziruddin Sirajuddin v. Lawale and Ors. (AIR 1956 Nag. 65). 4. Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the object of Article 229 of the Constitution is to secure the indepdence of the High Court, which is essential for the working of the democratic form of Government in this Country, by giving the High Court absolute control over its staff, subject only to the limitations imposed by the Article itself, and free from interference by the Government. Therefore, for the efficiency of administration, it is competent for the Chief Justice to frame Rules in exercise of power conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 for regulating the recruitment, conditions of service, classification, control, appeal and conduct with respect to the officers and employees of the High Court so that no executive officer can interfere with the exercise of power by the Chief Justice or his nominee, except to a very limited extent indicated in the proviso of Article 229 (1) and 229 (2). Counsel cited M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland ( AIR 1971 SC 1850 ), Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. L.V.A. Dikshltulu and Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 193 ), in the Rules so framed by the Chief Justice when an employee is punished by the Disciplinary Authority an appeal lies to the Chief Justice under Clause (c) of Rule 20, who decides the appeal as an Appellate Authority. The primary order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Registrar General, High Court, who is the custodian of all the records. If the order of the Appellate Authority affirming the order of the Primary Authority is challenged the Appellate Authority has not to justify the action before the writ Court, as there is no list between the Appellate Authority and the delinquent employee. Besides, even if the writ is issued the Chief Justice is not individually affected by the order of the writ Court. Besides, even if the writ is issued the Chief Justice is not individually affected by the order of the writ Court. In a writ of certiorari the Appellate Authority has to simply transmit the record, if called, which is to be transmitted by the Registrar General of the High Court who is the custodian of all records. Therefore, in the absence of the impleadment of the Chief Justice, the Appellate Authority, the writ petition would not be incompetent. Counsel cited B. Prabhakar Rao and others, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, etc. etc. ( AIR 1986 SC 210 ) and also placed reliance on the observations contained in para 8 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Udit Narayan Singh's case (supra). 5. Article 229 of the Constitution of India deals with Officers and Servants and the expenses of the High Court. In this Article power is vested in Chief Justice by Clause (1) read with Clause (2) to frame Rules to prescribe the conditions of service of Officers and Servants of the High Court which is the sole preserve of the Chief Justice, and no extraneous authority can interfere with the exercise of that power by the Chief Justice or his nominee, except to a very limited extent indicated in the provisos. In conferring such a supreme power the object which the Founding Fathers had in view, was to ensure independence of the High Court. See M. Gurumoorthy's case and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh's case (supra). 6. In case of High Court of Judicature, Rajasthan v. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Anr. ( AIR 1998 SC 1079 ) the Supreme Court after referring to Article 229 of the Constitution observed in para 18 & 19 thus: 18. This Article makes Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority in the matter of appointments of the High Court Officers and servants. This Article also confers rule-making power on the Chief Justice for regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that if the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the Governor of the State. If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate subject to the conditions made in that law. 19. If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate subject to the conditions made in that law. 19. The rule making power of the Chief Justice is subject to three restrictions - "(i) If the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to be approved by the Governor of the State. (ii) If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice will operate subject to that law. (iii) If the Governor of the State has, by rule, provided that no person, not already attached to the Court, shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission, the Chief Justice while making appointment on such post shall first consult the State Public Service Commission. 7. The Chief Justice of High Court of M.P. in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India has made the Rules for regulating the recruitments, conditions of service, Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct, with respect to the Officers and Employees of the High Court of M.P. Part v. of the Rules deals with Control and Discipline, which we quote: 19. All Employees in the Court shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice. 20. The provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to Employees of the High Court subject to the following - (a) In regard to Employees belonging to Class IV, Class III and Class II, the Disciplinary Authority shall be the Registrar General or such other officer as may be designated in this behalf by the Chief Justice. (b) In regard to Employees in Class 1 Posts, the Disciplinary Authority shall be the Chief Justice or such Puisne Judge as may be designated in this behalf by the Chief Justice. Power exercised by the State Government under the Rules adopted by the High Court shall be exercised in regard to Employees of the High Court by the Chief Justice. (c) An appeal shall lie to the Chief Justice against all Orders which may be passed by the Authority prescribed in Clause (a). Power exercised by the State Government under the Rules adopted by the High Court shall be exercised in regard to Employees of the High Court by the Chief Justice. (c) An appeal shall lie to the Chief Justice against all Orders which may be passed by the Authority prescribed in Clause (a). (d) Appeal shall lie against any order passed by the Authority prescribed under Clause (b). If the order is passed by the Chief Justice, appeal shall lie to a Committee of three Puisne Judges to be constituted by the Chief Justice. If the order is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, appeal shall lie to the Chief Justice. (e) The Enquiry Authority shall have power to issue notices to witnesses and to compel them to appear and give evidence or produce documents or both as the case may be. 8. In relation to employees Class IV, Class III and Class II in Clause (a) of Rule 20, the Disciplinary Authority is the Registrar General or such other officer as may be designated in this behalf by the Chief Justice. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority under Clause (c) of Rule 20, an appeal lies to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice exercises the powers under Clause (c) as an Appellate Authority. The order of the Chief Justice affirming or modifying the order of Disciplinary Authority is certainly amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that is to say, the correctness of the order passed by the Chief Justice in an appeal under Clause (c) of Rule 20, can be questioned on judicial side. 9. In a writ of certiorari when the High Court through Registrar General is impleaded as party, in the opinion of this Court, impalement of Chief Justice, who acts as an Appellate Authority, as a party is not necessary. As while deciding the appeal the Appellate Authority acts as a quasi judicial Authority as distinguished from its administrative act. When a writ of certiorari is prayed, the Appellate Authority has to transmit the record. It need not reply the writ averments ordinarily, nor the Appellate Authority needs to be represented by lawyer in the Court. The position of the Appellate Authority is like that of the Court or Tribunal against whose decision writ proceedings are filed. When a writ of certiorari is prayed, the Appellate Authority has to transmit the record. It need not reply the writ averments ordinarily, nor the Appellate Authority needs to be represented by lawyer in the Court. The position of the Appellate Authority is like that of the Court or Tribunal against whose decision writ proceedings are filed. They are not interested in the merits of the dispute in any sense, and so when their representation is not necessary as they are not interested in the list individually nor are they affected by the order of the writ Court, it would be unnecessary and even inappropriate to implead the Appellate Authority as party. To say so, we take support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob's case supra. 10. The purpose of arraying Appellate Authority is only to make the record available before the writ Court for perusal thereof. Once the High Court is made party through Registrar General to the litigation, there is no impediment to get the record for perusal of the Court. If the writ Court on perusal of the records takes a view that the order passed by the Chief Justice in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction in relation to disciplinary proceedings warrants interference the same can be done without arraying the Chief Justice as a party to the litigation, as the High Court through the Registrar General is already party to the proceedings who has to comply the order. 11. In the circumstances, apprehension of the Petitioner that if the Chief Justice is not arrayed as a party whose order as an Appellate Authority is under challenge, the writ petition would be incompetent is misconceived. The decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are distinguishable and are of no help to the Petitioner. As stated earlier, the Chief Justice while exercising his power under Clause (c) of Rule 20 does not pass any order on administrative side, but, he decides the appeal as an Appellate Authority. 12. Accordingly, the question referred is decided. The Petitioner is directed to delete the name of Respondent No. 2 from the array of the parties. Let the record of the case be placed before the learned Single Judge for hearing the petition on admission.