- (1.) This judgment shall govern Civil Appeal Nos. 6397-6398 of 2001 and Civil Appeal Nos. 6399-6400 of 2001. Civil Appeal Nos. 6397-6398 are filed by the High Court of Delhi and Civil Appeal Nos. 6399-6400 by some employees of the High Court of Delhi. In all the Appeals, a common judgment passed by the High Court is in challenge. By the said judgment, Writ Petitions filed by some of the High Court employees were allowed. In the said Writ Petitions, notification dated 7.8.1995, making amendment in Schedule II of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called "the Rules of 1972" for short), that pertain to the selection to the posts of Assistant Registrar, was in challenge. Rule 3 of these Rules dealt with joint inter-se seniority of confirmed employees in categories of equal status posts. There was a joint seniority list for three categories of employees, they being:- (1) Superintendents (2) Court Masters (3) Private Secretaries. Rule 7 provided the mode of appointment. It provided that the appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar could be made by selection on merit from confirmed officers of categories 5, 6 and 7 of Class I mentioned in Schedule I. These categories were none other, but the Superintendents, Court Masters and Private Secretaries, meaning thereby that these were the feeder posts to the post of Assistant Registrar. The last appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar under the said Rules of 1972 was made on 1.6.1993. In the year 1994, 5 vacancies arose in the post of Assistant Registrar and the selection process was initiated and a Committee, consisting two Hon'ble Judges of that Court, was constituted. However, on 2.7.1994, a representation came to be made by the Superintendents and the Court Masters that if the promotions were made as per the existing Rules on the basis of the combined seniority list, all the 5 post were likely to be filled only by the Private Secretaries, since they were much more in number and they were promoted in large numbers. It was, therefore, necessary to correct the imbalance. On 12.7.1994, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court directed the representation to be placed before the Committee constituted for selection to the post of Assistant Registrar.
(2.) On 7.11.1994 and 8.11.1994, the Committee interviewed 14 senior most officers for the aforementioned 5 posts of Assistant Registrar. However, no decision was taken. The said representation made by the Superintendents and Court Masters, however, came to be considered on 19.4.1995 and the Committee, therefore, recommended that the existing Rules should be amended, providing for 1/3rd quota each for Superintendents, Court Masters and Private Secretaries. It was also observed that if the recommendations were not accepted, then the vacant posts of Assistant Registrar could be filled from the candidates already interviewed. On 19.4.1995, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of that Court directed the then pending promotions to be made on the basis of the existing Rules and also held that the amendment of the said Rules should be made. However, that was to be only for the future posts. Another representation came to be filed on 26.4.1995 by the Superintendents and the Court Masters, pointing out that over the years on account of the existing Rules, the feeder category of Private Secretaries had gained maximum promotions to the posts of Assistant Registrar at the cost of the two remaining feeder posts, namely, Superintendents and Court Masters. It was pointed out that in the last 10 years, out of 28 promotions made to the post of Assistant Registrar, 15 were from the Private Secretaries, while only 13 came from the categories of Superintendent and Court Master combined. It was also pointed out that out of the 9 Assistant Registrars already working, 7 were from the category of Private Secretary and only 2 were from the Superintendents and Court Masters. This representation was directed to be placed before the same Committee. On 10.5.1995, the Committee recommended that suitable amendment should be made to the Rules and also noted that if the present vacancies were allowed to be filled on the basis of the existing Rules and the interviews already held, it would lead to a lot of frustration amongst the Superintendents/Court Masters. The Committee, therefore, reiterated its earlier recommendation that a quota should be provided for each feeder category. The recommendations were approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of that Court. Thereafter, the draft amendments were considered by the Committee. Those amendments were recommended to be effective from 1.7.1993, as the last appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar was made only on 1.6.1993. On 7.8.1995, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of that Court approved the amendment to the Rules, so suggested with retrospective effect from 1.7.1993. By that amendment, existing Rule 7 was amended and it was provided that the first vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar would be filled from Private Secretaries and the second and third vacancies would be filled from amongst the Superintendents and Court Masters. For that purpose, separate seniority list of Private Secretaries and Superintendents/Court Masters would be prepared. A fresh selection process thereafter was started on 9.8.1995 and on 11.8.1995. First senior most 8 officers from amongst the Private Secretaries and 11 officers from the seniority list of Superintendents/Court Masters were shortlisted for interview. The Committee was reconstituted on account of the retirement of Hon'ble P.K. Bahri, J., who was replaced by Hon'ble Arun Kumar, J. On 11.8.1995, the Committee interviewed candidates and made the recommendations. It was on the same day that Writ Petition No. 2944 of 1995 was filed by Shri A.K. Mahajan & Others, who belonged to the category of Private Secretaries. By that Writ Petition, the retrospective amendment to the Rules was challenged. On 19.8.1995, the Chief Justice of that Court granted approval to the promotions of 7 persons to the posts of Assistant Registrar with effect from 17.8.1995. Another Writ Petition, being CW No. 500 of 1996 came to be filed by Shri S.D. Sharma, wherein again the same amendment with retrospective effect was challenged. His grievance was that though he was called for the interviews held in November, 1994, he was not so called for the interview held in August, 1995. The Writ Petitions came to be allowed by the High court to the extent that only the retrospective effect of the amendment was found fault with and was invalidated. It is this common judgment, disposing of both the Writ Petitions, which has fallen for our consideration in the present matters.
(3.) Shri P.P. Rao, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants urged that the judgment of the High Court is not correct and proceeds on the wrong premise that the amendments took away the crystallized rights of the Writ Petitioners. The Learned Senior Counsel urged that there is no question of there being any crystallized rights as there can be no right for the promotion. According to Shri Rao, the extensive reliance by the appellants on decision in S.B. Mathur Vs. Chief Justice of Delhi, 1989 Supp1 SCC 34 was totally uncalled for and the ratio in that judgment was completely misunderstood by the High Court. Shri Rao further argued that there can be no question of there being any crystallized right or vested right in favour of the Writ Petitioners. It is further pointed out by the Learned Senior Counsel that the whole exercise was bonafide and taken with the sole objective of avoiding injustice to a particular class of employees like Superintendents/Court Masters in comparison to the Private Secretaries.;