Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Ahmad Siddique And 3 Ors. vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature ... on 17 May, 2018
Bench: Abhinava Upadhya, Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 29482 of 2016
Petitioner :- Mohd. Ahmad Siddique And 3 Ors.
Respondent :- Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal,Sameer Sharma
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.M.A.Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the High Court-respondent.
In this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the case is ripe for disposal.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the case is being taken up for disposal.
By means of this writ petition the petitioners have made the following prayers:
"(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 30.3.2016.
(ii)Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to promote the petitioners from the date when Juniors to the petitioners are promoted.
(iii)Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to provide all the consequential benefits to all the petitioners from the the date when their Juniors have been promoted.
(iv) Issue any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v)Award the cost of the writ petition in favor of petitioners."
The bone of contention in this writ petition is that the petitioners are the Deputy Registrars seeking promotion on the post of Joint Registrar. They have challenged the promotion of respondents no.2,3 and 4 to the post of Joint Registrars on the ground that the petitioners were also eligible for promotion but juniors to them have been promoted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an amendment to the Rules, namely, The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct (Amendment), Rules, 2013 (in short the Rules).
Rule 20(d) of the said Rules after amendment is quoted here-in-below:
"Notwithstanding Anything contained hereinafter the incumbent to the post of Joint Registrar must be a Law Graduate of a recognized University.
"Provided, however that where there are Deputy Registrars available and who are not Law graduates from a recognized University, their candidature be also considered for promotion to the post of Joint Registrars provided such Deputy Registrar has undergone training conducted by J.T.R.I. Lucknow to improve their knowledge of law, required for effective functioning of Joint Registrar and after successful training from JTRI Lucknow for the period to be prescribed by the Chief Justice (03 months) be also treated as eligible for being considered for promotion."
According to the proviso to the said Rules, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are eligible as they have successfully completed and passed the training from JTRI, Lucknow for the period of three months and, therefore, they became eligible and being senior to respondents no.2,3 and 4, they ought to have been considered for promotion.
Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the High Court submits that the amendment of 2013 was the subject matter of interpretation by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalji Singh and others Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others along with connected case of Nafees Ahmad and five others Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another being Writ A No. 45941 of 2013 and 11142 of 2014 respectively.
The Division Bench, while interpreting non obstante clause, has held that prior to amendment the word used was 'hereinbefore' but after the amendment the word 'hereinafter' has been substituted, which means 'notwithstanding anything contained hereinafter', that is to say the JTRI Training contained in the proviso, is after the Rules, which prescribes 'LL.B.' as the essential qualification. Therefore, interpreting the Rules, it has been held that notwithstanding JTRI Training, degree of LL.B. is the essential qualification.
Since in the non obstante clause the essential qualification for being promoted to the post of Joint Registrar is Law Graduate Degree then according to the Division Bench by the proviso only JTRI Training cannot be held to be sufficient qualification for being promoted for the post of Joint Registrar. The Court has gone to hold, which is quoted here-in-below:
"It is for the purpose of ensuring that even The Hon'ble The Chief Justice may not issue an order under Rule 41 or Rule 45 for promotion of Deputy Joint Registrar who does not possess a degree of law by way of promotion as Joint Registrar such non obstante clause had been introduced in Rule 20(d). The word used in the non-obstante clause"notwithstanding anything contained hereinafter" is a conscious decision of the Committee as approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, only to safeguard and even the Hon'ble The Chief Justice may not issue orders for appointment of the person as Joint Registrar who is not a law graduate."
That being the interpretation of Rule 20(d) by the Division Bench, we are inclined to agree with the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that the aforesaid judgment itself recites that the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side to consider the aforesaid rules in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. The Chief Justice thereafter while declining to challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court has referred the matter to the Rules Revision Committee constituted by the Chief Justice himself where the matter is still pending.
We have considered the submissions of Sri S.M.A.Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the High Court.
So far as Rule 20(d) of the said rules is concerned, it has been interpreted in Lalji Singh's case (supra) as the essential qualification for being promoted on the post of Joint Registrar is that of a Law Graduate Degree, which the petitioners do not possess and those, who have been promoted although junior to the petitioners, as claimed by the petitioners, do have the said degree and, therefore, at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
The writ petition is mis-conceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2018
SKM
(Abhai Kumar,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
