Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 182 (GAU)

M. C. Tiken v. State of Assam

2000-05-17

A.K.PATNAIK

body2000
The petitioner in this writ petition was working as Superintendent in Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court. By notification dated 22.1.92 issued by the Registrar, Imphal Bench, Gauhati High Court, the two posts of Assistant Registrar in Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court were redesignated as Assistant Registrar (Administration) and Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Shri Brajakumar Sarma, a Judicial Officer of Manipur Judicial Service was acting as Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Shri Sarma was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and as a consequence the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) fell vacant in the year 1992. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Gauhati High Court Services .(Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, (for short the Rules) the Assistant Registrar is to be appointed from among the State Judicial Service Grade III, or by promotion from among the Gazetted Officers of the High Court's Service belonging to Class HB, Class IIC and Class IID or from among the Advocates of not less than five years continuous practice at the Bar. Proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules stipulates that no Gazetted Officer of the High Court belonging to any of the classes mentioned in this sub-rule shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) unless he has got a Law Degree. The petitioner's case in this writ petition is that in the year 1992 c when the aforesaid post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant, he was the only Gazetted Officer amongst the Gazetted Officers belonging to Class IIB, Class IIC and Class IID of the High Court service who had a Law degree and, therefore, he was the only Gazetted Officer eligible for appointment to the said post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial). But with a view to deny the petitioner promotion to the said post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in Imphal Bench, a notification dated 29.7.93 (Annexure 1/31) was issued cancelling the notification dated 22.1.92 by which one of the posts of Assistant Registrar was designated as the Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Petitioner's further case is that after the said notification dated 29.7.93 was issued, by notification dated 1.9.97 (Annexure A/30) issued by the Registrar, Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the respondent No.5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar. Petitioner's further case is that after the said notification dated 29.7.93 was issued, by notification dated 1.9.97 (Annexure A/30) issued by the Registrar, Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the respondent No.5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid notifications dated 29.7.93 (Annexure A/31) and dated 1.9.93 (Annexure A/30) and for directing the respondents to appoint him to the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) with retrospective effect. 2. Mr. Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules only an officer of the High Court service belonging to Class HE, Class EC and Class IID having a Law degree was eligible for appointment as Assistant Registrar (Judicial). The respondent No.5 who did not have a Law degree had filed a writ petition (which was registered as Civil Rule No .642 of 1992 before this Court) claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court and in the said civil rule, the High Court as well as the Registrar, Imphal Bench had been impleaded as respondent Nos 1 and 2 and present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.5. In the said Civil Rule No. 642 of 1992 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Gauhati High Court and the Registrar,' Imphal Bench, Gauhati High Court, pleading inter alia that the third vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) was to be filled up by holder of Law degree and the petitioner (Shri N. Bijoy Singh) who has got no Law degree was not eligible for appointment as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in view of proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules. In view of the said pleadings in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Gauhati High Court and the Registrar, Imphal Bench, Gauhati High Court, Mr. Lalit Kumar explained that the petitioner was hopeful that he being the only Gazetted Officer possessing Law degree would be appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules. But the hopes of the petitioner were shattered by the exercise of power by the Chief Justice in cancelling the earlier notification dated 22.1.92 classifying the post of Assistant Registrars as Assistant Registrar (Judicial). But the hopes of the petitioner were shattered by the exercise of power by the Chief Justice in cancelling the earlier notification dated 22.1.92 classifying the post of Assistant Registrars as Assistant Registrar (Judicial). He cited the decision of this Court in the case of Smti Laishram Randhoni Devi vs. Gauhati High Court, 2000 (1) GLT 36 (2000 (1) GLJ 111), for the proposition that the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of his absolute discretion under the Rules cannot do anything and everything according to his pleasure by setting at naught rules and principles. Mr. Lalit Kumar submitted that since the cancellation of the earlier notification dated 22.1.92 by the impugned notification dated 29.7.93 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the said notification dated 29.7.93 should be quashed and the classification of the Assistant Registrars in Imphal Bench 'as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) and the earlier notification dated 22.1.92 should continue. He further submitted that if the impugned notification dated 29.7.93 is quashed and the classification of the Assistant Registrars as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) Assistant Registrar (Administration) continued as per the earlier notification dated 22.1.92, the petitioner being the only eligible candidate amongst the officers of the Class IIB, Class IIC and Class IID of High Court service at Imphal Bench who had Law degree should be promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar with retrospective effect from the date on which the respondent No.5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, was promoted by the notification dated 1.9.97. Mr. Lalit Kumar further stated that in the meanwhile the respondent No.5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, has retired from service and the only consequence would be that the petitioner would be senior to Shri N. Bijoy Singh in the rank of Assistant Registrar. 3. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos 3 and 4, on the other hand, produced records to show that the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court did not in any way act arbitrarily in cancelling the earlier designation of the Assistant Registrars as Assistant Registrar (J) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) and had taken the decision to ensure administrative efficiency. He further submitted that under Article 229 of the Constitution the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court had powers to pass such orders as he deems fit for ensuring administrative efficiency and such exercise of powers by the Chief Justice cannot be interfered with by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in exercise of powers of judicial review except in cases where such interference is permissible in certain settled principles relating to judicial review. In support of his submission, he cited the decision in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal & others, (1998) 3 SCC 72 , Mr. Nilamani Singh further submitted that in any case the entire writ petition has become academic since the respondent No.5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, has in meanwhile retired from service and the question of seniority between the petitioner and the said respondent No.5 is no longer relevant even for the purpose of promotion to higher post. 4. On a reading of the Rules, I find that it is only in the proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules that a reference has been made to Assistant Registrar (Judicial). In no other provision of the Rules reference to Assistant Registrar (Judicial) has been-made. In Rule 63 of the Rules, which is titled as 'Residuary powers', it is provided that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to the rules not specifically provided for therein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for. It is perhaps in exercise of the residuary powers under Rule 63 of the Rules that the Chief Justice had earlier decided to classify the two posts of Assistant Registrar of Imphal Bench as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) as notified in the notification dated 22.1.92. It is also perhaps in exercise of residuary powers under Rule 63 of the Rules that the Chief Justice has again decided to cancel the said notification dated 22.1.92 classifying the posts of Assistant Registrar as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration). The reason given by the Chief Justice for this change is noted in the records produced before the Court. The reason given by the Chief Justice for this change is noted in the records produced before the Court. The relevant portion of the notes containing the said reasons in the order of the Chief Justice dated 30.8.93 pursuant to which the promotion of the respondent No.5 was made by the impugned notification dated 1.9.93 is as follows : " There are three posts of Assistant Registrar in the Imphal Bench. At one stage I desired that one post should be occupied by Judicial Officer of Grade III. However, no Judicial Officer is available. It is necessary to fill up the post without further delay. At one stage the posts were designated as Protocol, Administration and Judicial. Since then the designation has been removed as it was found to be unnecessary and not conducive to administrative efficiency. The posts may be designated as Assistant Registrar (1), Assistant Registrar (II) and Assistant Registrar (III) merely for the purpose of identification and convenience. The designation will follow seniority. Post of Assistant Registrar (III) is now vacant." It is thus clear from the aforesaid reasons given by the Chief Justice that the designation of Protocol, Administration and Judicial given to the three posts of Assistant Registrar in Imphal Bench-of Gauhati High Court have been removed as it was found unnecessary and not conducive to administrative efficiency. From the aforesaid reasons it will be clear that the Chief Justice instead ordered that the posts should be redesignated as Assistant Registrar (I) Assistant Registrar (II) and Assistant Registrar (III) merely for the purpose of identification and convenience. Thus the designation of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) was done away by the Chief Justice for the purpose of administrative efficiency and the Assistant Registrars were redesignated as (I), (II) and (III) only for the purpose of identification and convenience. The exercise of powers by the Chief Justice under Rule 63 of the Rules for doing away the earlier designation of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration), therefore, cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. The exercise of powers by the Chief Justice under Rule 63 of the Rules for doing away the earlier designation of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration), therefore, cannot be held to be arbitrary or violative of the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. Further it also appears that after the designation of the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) was done away, three Gazetted Officers in Glass IIB, Class IIC and Class IID without Law degree were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (III) and the senior most officer was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar after the ACRs of three senior officers were considered by the Chief Justice. The senior most officer promoted was the respondent No. 5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, I therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the promotion of the respondent No. 5 by the impugned notification dated 1.9.93. 6. The aforesaid discussion would show that this was not a case where the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court had done anything according to his pleasure or had set at naught any provision of rule or principle. On the other hand, he had passed orders for changing of the designation of the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) for administrative convenience and for promotion of the respondent No. 5 after fairly considering the cases of three senior officers. The decision of this Court in the case of Laishram Randhoni Devi vs Gauhati High Court (supra) cited by Mr. Lalit Kumar has, therefore no application to the present case. 7. Mr. Lalit Kumar finally submitted that an anomaly presently exists in different seats or Benches of the Gauhati High Court inasmuch as there are posts of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in other seats or Benches where as there is no such posts of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in Imphal Bench. He produced before the Court a notification dated 25.4.2001 issued by the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court, appointing Shri Narayan Chandra Das, Stenographer Grade 1 of the Gauhati High Court, Principal Seat, temporarily as the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court on deputation. Mr. Lalit Kumar submitted that this would go to show that the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) exists in other seats or Benches. Mr. Lalit Kumar submitted that this would go to show that the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) exists in other seats or Benches. According to him, there should be uniformity with regard to designation of Assistant Registers in different Benches of the Gauhati High Court. This is purely an administrative matter and cannot be considered by the Court while exercising the power of judicial review but can only be considered by the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court who runs the High Court administration. In the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal & others (supra) cited by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers to run the High Court administration independently so as not to brook any interference from any quarter. A copy of this judgment will be sent to the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court, who will place this matter for consideration of the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.