S.C.AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Shri Poonam Chand has prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice K.D. Sharma as the Administrative Judge, and the order dated 22nd April, 1978 passed by the District Judge Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the District Judge).
(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner Poonam Chand and Shri Sheo Dutt Harsh, respondent No. 3 here in are employees in the Ministerial Establishment of the Court of District Judge at jodhpur and the terms and conditions of their service are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 1st October, 1947 in the then Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14th April, 1954 and he was promoted as Assistant with effect from 1st November, 1969 Respondent No. 3, Shri Sheo Datt Harsh, was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the then Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur on 7th March, 1946 and he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 4th July 1951 and on 23rd Ageist, 1969 he was selected as Assistant and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Reader permanently on 25th July, 1970. He was confirmed in the grade of Reader with effect from 25th July 1970. The petitioner has not been confirmed in the grade of Reader as yet. The post of Munsarim in the Court of District Judge at Jodhpur fell vacant on 31st December 1975 on the retirement of Shri Subhraj Dhariwal. Till any order for promotion to the post of Munsarim could be passed, the District Judge, by his order dated 16th December, 1975, directed that Shri Narain Singh, Senior Clerk, will look -after the work of Munsarim in additions to his own duties till further orders. By order dated 29th March, 1976, the District Judge appointed the petitioner to officiate as Munsarim in the District Court of Jodhpur with effect from the date he takes over the charge of the said post, By another order dated 24th April, 1976, the District Judge fixed the pay of the petitioner on the post of Munsarim at Rs. 410/ - in the pay seals 200 -15 350 20 -450 and directed that the date for the next increment will be 1st April, 1976, Respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved by the said order of the District Judge appointing the petitioner as Munsarim, submitted a representation dated 1Ith May, 1976 before the District Judge. It appears that no action was taken on the said representation of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, Respondent No. 3 submitted another representation dated 3rd April, 1978 The said representation was addressed to the Registrar of this Court. The original representation was submitted through the District Judge but a copy or the same was sent directly to the Registrar of this Court. After the said representation had been received by the Registrar of this Court, the comments of the District Judge along with the service record and confidential rolls of Respondent No 3 were called for. In response to the same, the District Judge sent his comments along with the service record and confidential rolls of Respondent No. 3 to the Registrar. In his comments, the District Judge, while admitting that respondent No. 3 is senior to the petitioner, has stated that respondent No. 3 was passed over and not promoted to the post of Munsarim in the interest of office administration in as much as there were series of complaints against respondent No. 3 and his general behavior was not good and he lacked sobriety and that he talked too much and irrelevant. In his comments aforesaid, the District Judge also stated that on perusal of the service record of respondent No. 3, it was found that he was once suspended and a penalty was imposed on him In the meanwhile, the petitioner proceeded on leave from 10th April, to 9th May, 1978 and the District Judge passed an order dated 10th April, 1978, appointing respondent No. 3, as Munsarim on an officiating basis for a period of one month from 10th April, 1973. On 15th April, 1978, the District Judge passed another order, wherein he has considered the submissions made by respondent No. 3 in the representation submitted by him against the order promoting the petitioner on the post of Munsarim and has given reasons why respondent No. 3 was passed over and was not promoted and the petitioner was promoted on the said post. In the said order dated 15th April, 1978, the District Judge has observed that there has been change in the conduct and behavior of respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner had expressed a desire to seek retirement after availing the leave due to him and in these circumstances the charge of the office of Munsarim had been entrusted to respondent No. 3 on an officiating basis till the petitioner was on leave and that in the circumstances, it was not necessary to revert the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner also came to know that respondent No. 3 had submitted a representation to the Registrar of this Court and he also submitted a representation dated 7th April, 1978 in the form of a reply to the representation of respondent No. 3 dated 11th May, 1976. The said representation of the petitioner was addressed to the District Judge. The representation of respondent No. 3 dated 3rd April, 1978 was well as the representation of the petitioner dated 7th April, 1978 were considered by Hon'ble Shri K.D. Sharma, who was the Administrative Judge at that time and by his order dated 19 -4 -1978, the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, while accepting the representation of respondent No. 3 and rejecting the representation of the petitioner arrived at the conclusion that respondent No. 3 deserves promotion to the post of Munsarim and that there is no justification for passing him over specially when he is ser for most and has good knowledge of law, rules and procedure. The Hon'ble Administrative Judge, by his order dated 19 -4 78, directed the District Judge to pass necessary orders regarding the promotion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Munsarim in the light of observations contained in the aforesaid order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, the District Judge, by his order dated 22nd April, 1978, promoted respondent No. 3 to the post of Munsarim and by the same order the petitioner was reverted to the post of Head Copyist. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge and the order dated 22nd April, 1978 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) IN the writ petition the petitioner has submitted that he had been duly appointed on the post of Munsarim and that the only remedy available to respondent No. 3 was to file an appeal under Rule 20(2) of the Rules against the order dated 29th March 1976 whereby the petitioner was appointed as Munsarim and that Respondent No. 3 having failed to file any appeal against the aforesaid order under Rule 20(2) of the Rules, the representation submitted by him against the aforesaid order before the Registrar of this Court was not competent and could not be accepted. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon'ble Administrative Judge had no jurisdiction to consider the said representation of respondent No. 3 and pass orders thereon and that all the Judges of this Court alone are competent to drat with an appeal or representation filed against an order of a District Judge. The petitioner, in his writ petition, has further submitted that the order dated 19th April, 1978 was passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to make his submission with regard to the representation submitted by respondent No. 3 and the said representation was allowed without giving any notice to the petitioner and the order dated 19th April, 1978 was thus passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also submitted that by order dated 29th March, 1976, the petitioner had been promoted on a substantive vacancy and that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 24 of the Rules, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Munsarim at the end of the pet and of one and half years and that as a result of the reversion from the post of Munsarim to the post of Head Copyist under the impugned order, the petitioner has been reduced in rank in contravention of the provisions ofArticle 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders on the ground that they are volatile of the fundamental rights of the petitions guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, while considering the representation of respondent No. 3 did not give an opportunity of hearing, to the petitioner and thus did not consider the case of the petitioner on merits.;