BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE question in this petition concerns about the ambit and scope of Article 229 of the Constitution of India as to the extent of power of Chief Justice and the extent of the field in which interference or say of the Government can prevail. THE petition is arising in the back drop of letter Annexure/1 dated 8. 8. 1997 issued by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court to the Secretary Law and Legal Affairs Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur for according sanction regarding upgradation of 16 posts of Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries in the pay scale of Rs. 3450-5000 with the special pay of Rs. 350/- equating this post with the Senior Private Secretary of State Assembly Secretariat. This was followed with quite a few reminders. THE request was turned down by the State Govt. vide Annexure/5 dated 30. 4. 1998. Aggrieved with this rejection, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are working in the cadre of Private Secretary in the Rajasthan High Court. It would be appropriate to recount the reasons which weighed with the Hon'ble Chief Justice to recommend upgradation of 16 posts of Private Secretary as Senior Private Secretary cum Judgment Writer as the matter of reorganising and restructuring the existing staff of the Rajasthan High Court in the interest of administrative efficiency which was felt to be adversely affected due to stagnancy in certain cadres. It is also pertinent to notice that at the time, when the recommendations were made, the pay scale in which the Private Secretaries were drawing their pay was in the pay scale of Rs. 2500/- 4250/- with special pay. Promotional avenue from the post of Private Secretary was to the post of Deputy Registrar (Non-RJS) in the pay scale of Rs. 3450- 5000 with special pay of Rs. 350/ -. The present pay scale of Private Secretaries is Rs. 10000-15200 with special pay of Rs. 340/- per month, whereas pay scale applicable to Deputy Registrar (Non-RJS) is Rs. 12000- 16500/- with special pay of Rs. 525/ -. This is also not in dispute before us that same pay scale which is applicable to Deputy Registrar (Non-RJS) working in the High Court is applicable to Senior Private Secretaries. In short, the next promotional post for the Private Secretaries working in the State Assembly Secretariat with similar amount of special pay attached thereto. There is no intermediary promotion post for the Private Secretaries working in the pay scale of Rs. 2500-4250/- (10000- 15200) was already to the post carrying pay scale of Rs. 3450- 5000 with special pay of Rs. 350/- (at present 12000-16500 with special pay of Rs. 525/- ). This recommendation has been returned by the State Government in the following terms: " I am directed to inform that the proposal of upgradation of 16 posts of Private Secretaries is not acceptable to the Government. " The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case is that under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court is the only authority vested with the power of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court and law down conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court except to the extent that rules made in that regard in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave, or pension of the employees, the require approval of the Governor. Accordingly to the learned counsel, since upgradation of certain posts of the existing staff was merely reorganisary step taken by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and within the frame work of pay scale current amongst staff of the High Court already applicable to the next promotional avenue, it was not in the domain of the Governor to interfere with that part of exercise on behalf of the Chief Justice and in the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent No. 1 has seriously erred in treating the letter Annex. 1 by the Registrar which was more in keeping with harmony of the conducive functioning between the executive and judiciary, as a matter on which State could exercise its discretion and scuttle the need of the High Court as envisaged by the Hon'ble Chief Justice and that too, in the summary manner in which the letter reflects. Responding to the aforesaid contention, Mr. R. P. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that since upgradation of posts involved financial implication, it was necessary for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to have sought approval of the Governor before upgrading the posts. The opinion of approval of Governor is not an empty formality. It was within the discretion of the Governor to have accepted or rejected the recommendations. He places reliance on the following decisions of Supreme Court: 1. Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India and ors. (1) 2. Satnam Singh and ors. vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and ors. 3. State of U. P. & Another vs. C. L. Agrawal & Another (3) Replying to the contention raised by Mr. Vyas, Mr. Singhvi has invited our attention to the following precedents: 1. M. Gurumoorthy vs. The Accountant General. (4), and 2. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal. (5)
(3.) IN support of his contention, Mr. Singhvi further submits that the matter of upgrading new posts in pay scale available to existing promotional avenue in the structure of Court staffing is not governed by proviso to Article 229 (2) so as to require the approval of the Governor. The creation of post within the High Court and every appointment thereon is exclusively in the domain of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Article 229 of the Constitution of India reads as under: " 229 (1) Appointment of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule required that in such cases as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other money taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund. " A perusal of the aforesaid Rule reveals that in contrast of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the power under Article 229 is vested in the Chief Justice alone or some other Judge or officer of the Court to whom such authority is delegated by the Chief Justice. The expression used by the Constitution further is clear indication of exalted position assigned to Chief Justice of the High Court in the matter of staffing of the High Court. It has not been even left to the Court as has been envisaged under Article 235 of the Constitution so as to require a collective decision but is left to only to the Chief Justice or any of his delegate. The organisational structuring of staff of High Court as per its requirement and efficient functioning and that power includes number of manpower and different posts required and their manning. ;