Palok Basu, I.M.Quddusi - (1.) TO start with, it may be stated that to this Court, the prayers as contained in the writ petition, do not appear to be very palatable. The petitioner Chandra Narain Tripathi is a practising lawyer of this Court and has filed this writ petition praying that it may be treated as pro bono public. It contains five prayers and two have been added by an amendment application which has been allowed. Sri Ashok Mehta may add the two reliefs after the relief No. 5 as relief Nos. 6 and 7. The newly added relief related to the 'Note' appearing in the Notification dated 29th January, 1997, a copy of which has already been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Relief No. 7 makes a request that an appointment of Committee may be directed to investigate, enquire and find out the persons who conspired in the deception of altering "the Rule 20".
(2.) THE initial relief No. 1 seeks a mandamus calling upon the Honourable the Chief Justice to take immediate deterrent action against the guilty officials of the Registry, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench dated 17.12.1996 in Writ Petition No. 4449 of 1996, Kalyan Chandra Srivastava v. Honourable Chief Justice and others, (already reported in 1997 (1) AWC 360). Relief No. 2 is that a mandamus should be issued requesting the Honourable the Chief Justice to amend, modify and enlarge the terms of reference of the enquiry Committee as appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice so as to include the matter of deception, fraud etc. Relief 4 appears to be connected with the aforesaid prayers and it requires a writ of certiorari calling for the record relating to the said amendment in the Rule 20 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 of the Court. Relief No. 5 is the normal one which is always pleaded in writ petitions, i.e., any other writ, order or direction to which the petitioner may be found entitled, may be granted. At the end it may be mentioned that relief No. 3 is containing the prayer that Registrar of this Court who has been impleaded by name as opposite party No. 3, be not appointed as a Judge of this Court by Union of India which has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Mehta has been heard at considerable length in support of writ petition. Sri Jain relied upon Article 217 of the Constitution and four decisions of the Supreme Court in order to lend support to his arguments concerning six reliefs as mentioned above: (i) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (Paragraphs 14 and 15), (ii) Sheela Barse v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1773 (Paragraphs 8 and 9), (iii) S. C. Advocates' Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268 (Paragraphs 413 and 501 (9), and (iv) State of Orissa v. Vimal Kumar Mohanti, AIR 1994 SC 2296 (Paragraphs 8 and 12). It may be mentioned here that in this Court there is a notably honest and upright officer by the name of Sri Kalyan Chandra Srivastava. He was expecting promotion but was probably not getting specific response perhaps in view of the Rule 20 of the said Rules as those were said to be reading then consequently a Writ Petition (No. 4449 of 1996) was filed y Sri Kalyan Chandra Srivastava. During the course of argument in the said writ petition it appeared to the Division Bench that Rule 20 of the Rules governing officers' promotions etc. of this Court as it existed did not incorporate in it all the amendments which were passed by the Judges Committee or the Administrative Committee, as the case may be. Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, the then Additional Advocate General was espousing the cause of the High Court before the Division Bench. There was a concession made by him that on the question of how and why certain interpolations, etc. appear to be existing in the original Rule 20, could not be explained by him. It has been noted by the Division Bench as under : "It is only when the record were examined in detail by us that too with deep penetrating scrutiny that the deception could be deciphered and discovered. It is impossible to believe that the Registry was unaware of the deception. Even then Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi fairly conceded the fact in course of argument, the Registry sought to engage Shri A. K. Yog to support their action." The Division Bench then observed in Paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 as under : "24. For the aforementioned reasons the unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 cannot be sustained. As the authorised and unauthorised amendments of Rule 20 contained in the Notification dated 13.12.1994 are intermixed, we consider it proper to quash the whole Rule with a direction to the Registrar to publish the amended Rule 20 afresh. 25. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. Rule 20 contained in the Notification dated 13.12.1994 is declared ultra vires and is quashed. The Registrar of this Court is directed to get Rule 20 containing amendments proposed by the Judges Committee's report dated 6.10.1994 as accepted by Honourable the Chief Justice by orders dated 14.11.1994 and 10/18.12.1994 published forthwith. The Bench secretaries will be entitled to their quota for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Registrar. 26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made above, Honourable the Chief Justice may consider propriety and desirability of taking appropriate action against the guilty officials o this Court who are responsible for preparing and publishing unauthorised amendments of Rule 20."
(3.) THE argument of Sri Jain is two-fold. To start with the first it is said that Honourable the Chief Justice has not either followed the directions of the Division Bench or did not comply with the directions contained in the judgment; second that the Registrar knowingly appended a 'note' in the Notification dated 29.1.1997 which reads as under : "Note.-THEse amendments will come into force with effect from the date of publication of Notification in the Official Gazette and govern only the future appointments." According to Sri Jain, this note does not carry out the intention of the Division Bench deciding the case and he describes the note as a mischief on the part of Registrar. Having heard Sri Jain, as stated at considerable length, arguments are repelled. The reasons are noted in the paragraphs below.;