M.H.KANIA - (1.) THIS Writ Petition owes its origin to a dispute between different groups of employees of the Delhi High Court, claiming better rights of promotion for themselves, a type of dispute too common in services these days. The present Writ Petition has been filed by some Superintendents in the Delhi High Court objecting to their being treated on a par with the Private Secretaries to learned Judges and Court Masters and being included in a joint seniority list along with them, particularly as far as the promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Registrar is concerned. In order to appreciate the controversy before us, it is necessary to keep in mind the background in which the dispute has originated.
(2.) PRIOR to the Constitution of the Delhi High Court in 1966, there was a Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court sitting at Delhi. By Act 26 of 1966, Parliament established an independent High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi. By an order dated 31/10/1966, effective from 31/10/1966, the Government of India created a staff for the said High Court. The letter of the Government of India, which is Annexure A to the petition, shows that the President of India sanctioned the creation of certain posts for the Delhi High Court with effect from 31/10/1966 or from the date of setting up of the High Court, whichever was later, up to 28/02/1967. Amongst these posts, there was a post of an Assistant Registrar having a pay-scale of Rs. 500-30-800 plus (scales of pay and dearness allowance as admissible in Punjab). Among the other posts created were six posts of Private Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges of the High Court in the pay-scale of Rs. 350-20-450-25-475, six posts of Readers and seven posts of Superintendents. The pay-scale of all these posts was the same, namely, Rs. 350-20-45-25-475. The Delhi High Court started functioning with effect from 31/10/1966. The staff of the Punjab and Haryana High Court working in Delhi was, for the time being, treated as on deputation to the Delhi High Court till they were permanently absorbed in the Delhi High Court. From the time of its formation till 1971. the Delhi High court had no rules of its own regarding conditions of service or regarding, the salary or seniority in respect of its staff. Section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (Act 26 of 1966), in brief, provided that, subject to the provisions of the said Act, the law in force immediately before the Appointed Day (31-10-1966) with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to the Delhi High Court and confer powers on the High Court of Delhi to make rules and orders with respect to its practice and procedure, such powers being the same as exerciseable by the High Court. of Punjab immediately before the Appointed Day. There was a proviso which was to the effect that any rules or orders which were in force immediately before the Appointed Day with respect to practice and procedure in the High Court of Punjab shall, until varied or revoked by rules or orders made by the High Court of Delhi, apply with the necessary modifications in relation to practice and procedure in the High Court of Delhi as if made by that High Court. The Delhi High Court started in 1966 with four Hon'ble Judges including the Chief Justice and among its staff inter alia were four Superintendents, four Readers and three Private Secretaries against the sanctioned strength. Under the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court framed the Delhi High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Salary Rules of 1970") and the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Seniority Rules of 1971"). Under the Salary Rules of 1970, the scale of pay for Superintendents, Readers and Private Secretaries was the same, i.e. Rs. 350-20-475. With the increase of work and the extension of the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, there was an increase in the number of Judges as well as staff of the Court. According to the Petitioners, by March 1979, there were 21 Private Secretaries, 21 Readers and 13 Superintendents in the Delhi High Court. It appears that because of the increase in the number of Judges, the increase in the posts of Private Secretaries and Readers was at a somewhat higher rate than that in the posts of Superintendents. We are informed that in March 1988, the position was that there were 27 Private Secretaries, 30 Readers and 24 Superintendents in the same, pay scale. We may mention that Readers are now called Court Masters. We may at this stage consider the Seniority Rules of 1971. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that inter se seniority of confirmed employees in any category of the High Court staff shall be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation. Rule 5 of the said rules runs as follows : "Joint inter se seniority of confirmed employees in categories of equal status posts shall be determined according to their dates of confirmation in any of those categories." Rule 9, with which we are not directly concerned, provides that certain credit for purposes of seniority shall be given to an employee who before his appointment as Assistant in the High Court was working on any of the posts mentioned in Clause IV of Schedule II. Rule 2 contains certain definitions for purposes of the said Rules. Rule 2(ii) runs as follows : " 'Equated post' means any of the posts shown as equated posts, from time to time, in Schedule I to these rules." Clause (iii) of the said Rule runs as follows : " 'Equal status posts means the posts shown to be of equal status, from time to time, in Schedule II to these rules." Item (ii) of Schedule I under Rule 2 runs as follows : "Equated Posts : (i) Judgment Writers/ Personal Assistants to Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court (from 7-11-1964) and Private Secretaries to Judges." The relevant portion of Schedule II (See Rule 2) runs thus "Equal Status Posts : Superintendents, Court Masters, Private Secretaries to Judges ... ..".
(3.) IN exercise of the powers vested in the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, he framed certain rules which were notified on 15/09/1972, called Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Establishment Rules of 197211). Rule 7 of the said Rules runs as follows : "7. Mode of Appointment. Except for appointment on officiating, temporary or ad hoc basis, the mode of and qualifications for appointment to the posts specified in Schedule II to these rules shall be as stated therein." The material portion of Schedule II runs as follows : SCHEDULE-II (See Rule 7) JUDGEMENT_34_SUPP1_1989Html1.htm ;