Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 454 (JK)

Sudershan Singh Jamwal v. State

2015-09-01

B.S.WALIA, MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.:- 1. The appellant as also the respondents 4 and 5 have superannuated from service. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner’s grievance in the writ petition was that he was denied consideration for being promoted even on ad hoc basis on the post of Dy. Registrar (Adm.). 3. In the writ petition, he challenged the ad hoc promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. The learned Writ Court though dismissed the writ petition wherein challenge was made to the promotion of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 but Registrar General was directed to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appointing a committee of two judges, if not constituted till date, to re-consider the report dated 25.09.1993, in the light of the resolution of the Full Court Meeting held on 27.11.1993. 5. Mr Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner made elaborate submissions at Bar. He read the impugned judgment almost in its entirety with a view to persuade the court to grant relief to the appellant/writ petitioner which has been denied to him by the learned Writ Court. 6. Learned Senior Counsel specifically referred to the following observation made in the impugned order: “The stand of the High Court that the only feeding channel to the post of Deputy Registrar is from amongst the Assistant Registrar does not appear to be consistent with its past and present practice. S/Shri A. R. Zaki and R. K. Kachroo were never promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar but were promoted from Readers to the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer). 7. Learned Senior Counsel submitted this very observation of the Writ court does make out the case in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. Learned senior counsel also submitted that relaxation in the qualification at almost every point of time has been granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 whereas the appellant/writ petitioner has had an impeccable service record, but not considered for promotion. 8. Learned senior counsel also referred to Rule 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 which is taken note of: “6. Qualification and mode of recruitment - The Chief Justice may from time to time lay down the qualification of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment.” 9. 8. Learned senior counsel also referred to Rule 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 which is taken note of: “6. Qualification and mode of recruitment - The Chief Justice may from time to time lay down the qualification of a member of service and determine the mode of recruitment.” 9. Learned senior counsel probably wanted to convey that the power exercised could not be exercised in the manner it has been done in the case of respondents 4 and 5. 10. Mr. Amrish Kapoor, learned counsel for High Court and Mr Pranav Kohli, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that in terms of Order No. 44 of 1986 dated 06.06.1986, Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6 of J and K High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 has provided for the eligibility, qualification and mode of recruitment for certain posts available in the High Court which includes the post of Deputy Registrar (adm.). Learned counsel while referring to the said order stated that the post of Assistant Registrar is the only feeding post for the post of Dy. Registrar (adm.) 11. Learned counsel also referred to the Order No. 700-727/GS dated 19.04.1995 issued by Registrar General of the J and K High Court wherein applications were invited for filling up of the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer). The feeding post for the post of Dy. Registrar (Computer) as mentioned in the said notice is Assistant Registrars, Private Secretaries and Readers. 12. Learned counsel submitted that appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for being considered for the post of Deputy Registrar (adm.) which is a post different than that of post of Deputy Registrar (Computer). He submitted that by the promotion of private respondents, none of the rights of the appellant/writ petitioner were infringed. 13 The Hon’ble Chief Justice in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Staff (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968 has issued the order providing therein for the eligibility qualifications for the various posts which includes post of Deputy Registrar (adm.) and the feeding channel has also been earmarked in the said order. 14. For the post of Dy. Registrar (adm.), the Assistant Registrar is the only feeding post. 15. 14. For the post of Dy. Registrar (adm.), the Assistant Registrar is the only feeding post. 15. Admittedly, when the promotion of private respondents were made on ad hoc basis on the said post, they were Assistant Registrars whereas the appellant/writ petitioner was only Reader, thus not eligible for being promoted on the post of Deputy Registrar (adm.). 16. The observation of the learned Single Judge taken note of in this order, is in reference to the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer) for which notification was issued on 19.04.1995 and the feeding services for the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer) were Assistant Registrars, Private Secretaries and Readers. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner did not respond to the said notification though was eligible for being promoted on the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer). 17. The observation of Ld. Single Judge made in impugned order and which is taken note of in this order is rendered inconsequential and does not advance the cause of the appellant/writ petitioner in as much as S/Shri A. R. Zaki and R. K. Kachroo were Readers promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar (Computer) in terms of notification dated 19.04.1995 and not to posts of Dy. Registrar (Adm.). Thus, it can not be said that the post of Assistant Registrar alone is not the feeding post for the post of Deputy Registrar (adm.). 18. Since we have recorded finding that the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for being promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar (adm.), so by the promotion of private respondents, none of his legal rights were infringed. He could not have filed writ petition praying issuance of writ of Certiorari, as he did not suffer infringement of any of his legal rights. For this reason the other issues raised by learned counsel need not to be considered. 19. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any merit and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.