R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) WHETHER Rule 20 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as published vide Notification dated 13.12.1994 in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 16.12.1994, is illegal and ultra vires being inconsistent with and contrary to the Judges Committee's recommendations and the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, is the question involved in this petition.
(2.) IN 1961 petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Assistant in High Court. IN 1978 he was promoted as Upper Division Assistant. He appeared in the competitive examination held for selection of the Bench Secretaries and being successful, he was appointed as such on 7.2.1979. After completing ten years' service as Bench Secretary Grade II he was promoted on 15.6.1989 to the post of Bench Secretary Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500. On that post he was confirmed on 1.3.1992. Thereafter on 12.7.1995 he was promoted to the post of Bench Secretary (Senior Scale) in the pay scale of Rs. 3.000-4,500. On 24.7.1995 he was promoted as Assistant Registrar in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4,000. As the pay scale of Bench Secretary (Senior Scale) is higher than the pay scale of the Assistant Registrar, he raised objection against the said promotion and claimed that he is entitled to be promoted to the Post of Deputy Registrar. As Rule 20 after its amendment by Notification dated 13.12.1994 published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 16.12.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification) has excluded the Bench Secretaries from the eligibility list for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar, he filed a representation before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate relief. Not having secured the desired relief, he has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 20. INcidental and consequential reliefs, including fixation of his seniority, have also been claimed. The parties have exchanged affidavits. We have heard Sri Sunil Ambwani learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel, Sri S. C. Budhwar and Smt. Poonam Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents. We have also heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedl, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of contentions, but it is not necessary to deal with and decide all of them, as we propose to allow this writ petition on his first submission. His first submission is that Rule 20 is illegal and ultra vires, because it is inconsonent with and contrary by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. From comparison of the Judges Committee's report and the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice accepting the same with Rule 20, it is apparent that there Is material difference between the two. We, therefore, on 17.9.1996 directed the Registrar of this Court to produce the file containing the original relevant record. The record was placed before us on 18.9.1996. As Sri Rakesh Dwivedi learned Additional Advocate General wanted time to go through the original record, we directed the case to be put up on the next day. On the next date we heard the learned counsel for the parties on the first question regarding the unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 by the Notification. From perusal of the original record, it became apparent that many posts have been included in Rule 20 for appointment to Class I posts in the establishment of this Court, although there is neither any recommendation of the Judges Committee nor is there any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for their inclusion. The said Rule has also excluded the Bench Secretaries from the eligibility list for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar, lnspite of the Judges Committee's report as accepted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for their inclusion. Sri Rakesh Dwivedl, learned Additional Advocate General has also stated that the Notification containing the amended Rule 20 is ultra vires, because it has included many posts and excluded the Bench Secretaries without there being any recommendation of the Judges Committee and the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice for their inclusion/ exclusion. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we reserved the judgment.
(3.) AS the writ petition did not contain appropriate pleadings regarding the unauthorised amendment of Rule 20 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has built his arguments on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the Registry of this Court and the Judges committee's report and the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice filed along with it, we considered it appropriate that the Registry should be given another opportunity to produce in support of Rule 20 any other report and the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, If any permitting such drastic changes. Therefore, on 27.9.1996, we passed an order, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : "From perusal of the report dated 6.10.1994 of the Three-Judges Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) recommending amendment of Rule 20 of the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which relates to the promotion to Class I posts in this Court, as accepted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 10.11.1994 and the final Notification dated 13.12.1994 containing the amended Rule 20 as published in the U. P. Gazette dated 16.12.1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification), we find that there is inconsistency between the two. This is clear from the following : (a) ASsistant Registrar (b) Principal Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice/ Head Private Secretary (i) In the notification for promotion to the post of ASsistant Registrar Permanent Officer on Special Duty, Permanent Public Relation Officers and Permanent Section Officer (Cash) have been made eligible, although there was neither any recommendation of the Committee nor there appears to be any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice to that effect. (ii) The Committee recommended 15 per cent quota for the permanent private Secretaries including ASsistant Principal Private Secretary for promotion to the post of ASsistant Registrar, but the notification does not contain any such provision. (iii) The quota fixed for permanent Bench Secretaries for promotion to the post of ASsistant Registrar by the Committee was 15 per cent, but the notification has raised it to 20 per cent without recommendation of the Committee and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. (iv) The quota of Section Officers of General Office was fixed at 70 per cent by the Committee, but the same has been raised to 80 per cent in the notification. (v) The word 'permanent' has been added before 'Section Officers' though the Committee recommended 'Section Officer' for promotion. (i) The Committee recommended the appointment to the post of Principal Private Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice/Head Private Secretary by way of promotion from the ASsistant Registrar, but the notification has completely changed the system by providing for appointment to those posts by promotion of permanent Private Secretaries including ASsistant Principal Private Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. (ii) That apart, the same channel for appointment has been provided to the post of Private Secretary, even though no such recommendation was made by the Committee. (c) Deputy Registrar (i) The Committee recommended by promotion from the ASsistant Registrar, but 'Permanent Private Secretary including ASsistant Principal Private Secretary (20 per cent)' has been added while the quota of ASsistant Registrars has been shown at 80 per cent though by implication the same would be 70 per cent. (ii) Although the Committee recommended 15 per cent quota to the Bench Secretaries Grade I for promotion by transfer to the post of Deputy Registrar, but the notification has deleted the same and there does not appear to be any order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, justifying the said deletion. (iii) The Committee recommended promotion of Principal Private Secretary/Head Private Secretary, provided that the post is available In his quota. But in the notification 'Private Secretary in the same pay scale as Principal Private Secretary' has been included though not recommended by the Committee. (d) Joint Registrar Proviso has been added to clause (d) of Rule 20 pertaining to the promotion to the Post of Joint Registrar without there being any recommendation of the Committee and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice to that effect. (e) Additional Registrar No amendment was recommended for the post of Additional Registrar by the Committee, but the proviso has been added to Rule 20 (e) pertaining to the Additional Registrar without any recommendation of the Committee and order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Registry, therefore, has to explain the reasons for addition/deletion in the notification and it has also to produce the report of the Committee and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice permitting such drastic changes. We, therefore, direct the Registrar to file an affidavit within three weeks explaining the inconsistency between the Committee's report as accepted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the notification. He will also file the further recommendation of the Committee and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, if any, authorising the aforesaid changes in the notification." We also permitted the petitioner to amend the writ petition by making proper pleadings in support of the first contention raised on his behalf. Thereafter the Registry has filed supplementary counter-affidavit. Affidavits have also been filed by other respondents and the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. Thereafter we have heard the learned counsel for the parties again. We also heard Sri A. K. Yog who for the first time appeared before us on behalf of the High Court. In view of the provisions contained in Article 229 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice is the appointing authority of the officers and servants of the High Court. Under Article 229 (2), the Chief Justice has been empowered to frame Rules regulating conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that so far as they relate to the salary, allowances, leave or pension, approval of the Governor has to be obtained. Under the said provisions, the Chief Justice has framed Rules known as the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976.;