- (1.) The Authority which has been dispensing justice to others, is, today before us seeking itself justice on being aggrieved by the judgment passed by two of its Judges on 28-9-93 in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 (Ramesh Chand Paliwal) challenging the promotion of respondent No. 2 (Sankal Chand Mehta) on the post of Deputy Registrar. Not only that respondent No. 1 wanted the Chief Justice's order dated 6-3-92 by which Sankal Chand Mehta was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar to be quashed, he also prayed that the order of the Chief Justice dated 28-2-92 by which the earlier establishment order dated 11-5-90 was amended, be also quashed.
(2.) The Chief Justice, in exercise of powers available to him under Article 229 of the Constitution has made Rules known as Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 which have been amended by him from time to time by administrative orders. The promotion on the post in question is regulated by these Rules.
(3.) The vacancy, on which Sankal Chand Mehta was promoted as Deputy Registrar, had occurred on the retirement of Shambhu Chand Mehta on 31st of January, 1992. The post of Deputy Registrar, therefore, became vacant on 1st of February, 1992. It has been held that this vacancy could be filled up only in accordance with the rules which were prevalent on that date and since respondent No. 2 had been promoted to that post in accordance with the rules as amended on 28-2-92, and, not in accordance with the rules prevalent on 1-2-92, the said promotion was bad. The Hon'ble Judges proceeded to say that ordinarily they would have quashed the appointment of respondent No. 2 on the post of Deputy Registrar but since he was to retire on 30th of September, 1993, they did not do so but directed that the vacancy occurring on 1-10-93 shall be treated to be a vacancy available on 1-2-92 and that vacancy would be filled up in accordance with the rules set out in the administrative order dated 11-5-90 by considering the eligible officers belonging to the cadre of Private Secretaries only. It was further directed that the appointment made on the post of Deputy Registrar would be deemed to have been made w.e.f. 6-3-92 when respondent No. 2 was illegally promoted to that post. The Judges did not decide the question of validity of the amendments made by the Chief Justice in the rules by order dated 28-2-92.;