HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the selection of respondents No. 3 to 8 as the Readers attached to Hon'ble Judges of this Court by the petitioners, who are regular and confirmed employees of this Court, serving for more than two decades.
(2.) VIDE notice dated 22.07.2002, applications were invited for the post of Readers to Hon'ble Judges from the candidates who are eligible in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Service) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Rules"). The syllabus of the competitive examination consists of written paper carrying 100 marks; Practical Test (oral) regarding familiarity with records of the High Court and lower Courts and Registers maintained in the Judicial Department carrying 50 marks; Oral examination Shikasta reading in languages of the lower Courts i.e., Hindi and Punjabi, carrying 50 marks and, lastly, Viva Voce including familiarity with law reports and other law books carrying 25 marks, thus, total 225 marks. The petitioners being eligible applied for the post of Reader. They were called for written examination held on 18.10.2003. 23 candidates qualified the written examination. Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Committee to hold the further oral test. The petitioners, amongst other candidates, were called for practical test (oral) and Shikasta reading in the languages on 20.03.2004. The test was not held on the said date but on 26.05.2004 the process was completed by the Committee and the merit list was sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(3.) INITIALLY , Hon'ble Chief Justice approved the merit list on 29.05.2004 and directed the Registrar to take further action but before the Registrar could issue the orders, Hon'ble Chief Justice recorded a note on 31.05.2004 in respect of grant of 125 marks in the oral test and the interview as ultra vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, amended the Rules in exercise of powers conferred on him under Articles 229 and 231 of the Constitution of India. The amended Rules were notified on 31.05.2004 whereby 100 marks for written examination were maintained but 10 marks for Practical Test, 10 marks for Oral examination Shikasta reading in language of the lower courts and 5 marks for Viva Voce, including familiarity with law reports and other law books, were prescribed. Thus, instead of 125 marks for different aspects of oral examination were curtailed to 25 marks. Since the Rules were amended, all the eligible candidates were subjected to oral part of the examination afresh. Notice for such examination was issued on 6.11.2004 to appear before a Committee on 18.11.2004. On the basis of the recommendations of the Committee, respondents No. 3 to 8 have been appointed on 30.11.2004, which appointment is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that once the selection process is set in motion, the criteria for selection cannot be changed midstream. If any change is effected, such change will be effective for the subsequent selection and not for the selection initiated prior to the amendment of the Rules. It is also contended that the principle is that the rules applicable on the date of vacancy has to be applied, therefore, the amendment made on 31.05.2004 cannot be made applicable in respect of the vacancies which were advertised earlier and were available before 31.05.2004. Reliance is placed upon Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, (1983)3 Supreme Court Cases 284 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jagar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2002(4) SCT 1014 : 2003(1) RSJ 795. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991(2) SCT 194 : (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 47 to contend that the respondents have no licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons.;