Delhi High Court
Anil Yadav And Ors. vs Delhi High Court on 24 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 24.07.2017
+ W.P.(C) 6232/2017, C.M. APPL.25861/2017 & 25862/2017
ANIL YADAV AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
(Appearance not given)
Versus
DELHI HIGH COURT THR. THE HON'BLE REGISTRAR
GENERAL ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Sonia Sharma, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioners claim direction to entitle them to participate in the
upcoming examination for the post of Administrative Officer
(Judicial)/Court Master [hereafter "AOJ/CM"], scheduled for 12th and 13th
August, 2017.
2. The facts are that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Judicial
Assistants (JJAs) on various dates in 2007-08. Four of them were promoted
as Judicial Assistants (JAs) on 01.06.2012 and the rest eleven of them were
promoted on 16.09.2013. They were further promoted to the post of Senior
Judicial Assistants on 24.02.2014. It is submitted that the promotions made
to the post of JAs and SJAs were on regular basis, in that they were preceded
by a notification of vacancies, selection through the normal process of
test/interview or seniority, as the case may be, as mandated by the rules.
3. The High Court establishment, nevertheless, termed the
posting/promotion as "ad hoc". Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction
that the expression should not come in the way of their entitlement for
claiming eligibility towards qualifying services.
4. The bone of contention in this case is with respect to the petitioners'
eligibility to compete for the post of AOJ/CM. The rules for the post
stipulate the eligibility conditions in the following manner:
SI Category of Post Minimum Qualifications Mode of appointment
No. prescribed for appointment to
the post
4. Administrative (A) Graduate with 5 years (A) 25% of the vacant posts by
Officer (Judicial) regular service (Law graduate promotion on the basis of seniority-
to be preferred) in any of the cum-merit from joint seniority list of
(Promotion/Selection posts of Senior Judicial categories Senior Judicial
Post) Assistant/Senior Judicial Assistant/Senior Judicial
Translator/Reader/Court Translator/Reader and Court Officer.
Officer.
(B) (i) For members of (B)(i) & (ii) 75% of the vacant posts
establishment of this Court: by selection or merit on the basis of
Graduate with 5 years' regular written test and interview from
service (Law Graduate to be categories specified in column 3(B)(i)
preferred) or non-graduate with & (ii)
8 years' service in any of the
post of Assistant Accounts
Officer/Senior Judicial
Assistant/Senior Judicial
Translator/Reader/Senior
Personal Assistant/Senior
Assistant Librarian/Court
Officers and/or its equivalent
post;
OR
Graduate with 7 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Judicial
Assistant/Judicial
Translator/Personal
Assistant/Assistant
Librarian/Chief Cashier or its
equivalent post or combined
service is any of these posts and
the posts mentioned in clause
(B)(i) above;
(B)(ii) For members of the
establishment of Courts
subordinate to this Court:
Graduate with 5 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Senior
Judicial Assistant/Senior
Personal Assistant.;
OR
Graduate with 7 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Judicial
Assistant/Personal Assistant or
combined service in any of these
posts and the posts mentioned in
clause (B)(ii) above;
(B)(iii) For direct recruits: (B)(iii) in case requisite number of
Graduate with 5 years' regular candidates do not qualify for selection
service (Law Graduate to be on merit in terms of provisions of
preferred) having grade Pay of clause (B)(i) & (ii) above, by direct
Rs. 4800/- and or above. recruitment on the basis of written test
and interview.
5. Court Master (A) Graduate with 5 years (A) 25% of the vacant posts by
regular service (Law graduate promotion on the basis of seniority-
(Promotion/Selection to be preferred) in any of the cum-merit from joint seniority list of
Post) posts of Senior Judicial categories Senior Judicial
Assistant/Senior Judicial Assistant/Senior Judicial
Translator/Reader/Court Translator/Reader and Court Officer.
Officer.
(B)(i) For members of (B)(i) & (ii) 75% of the vacant posts
establishment of this Court: by selection or merit on the basis of
Graduate with 5 years' regular written test and interview from
service (Law Graduate to be categories specified in column 3(B)(i)
preferred) or non-graduate with & (ii)
8 years' service in any of the
post of Assistant Accounts
Officer/Senior Judicial
Assistant/Senior Judicial
Translator/Reader/Senior
Personal Assistant/Senior
Assistant Librarian/Court
Officers and/or its equivalent
post;
OR
Graduate with 7 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Judicial
Assistant/Judicial
Translator/Personal
Assistant/Assistant
Librarian/Chief Cashier or its
equivalent post or combined
service is any of these posts and
the posts mentioned in clause
(B)(i) above;
(B)(ii) For members of the
establishment of Courts
subordinate to this Court:
Graduate with 5 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Senior
Judicial Assistant/Senior
Personal Assistant.;
OR
Graduate with 7 years' regular
service (Law Graduate to be
preferred) in the post of Judicial
Assistant/Personal Assistant or
combined service in any of these
posts and the posts mentioned in
clause (B)(ii) above;
(B)(iii) For direct recruits: (B)(iii) in case requisite number of
Graduate with 5 years' regular candidates do not qualify for selection
service (Law Graduate to be on merit in terms of provisions of
preferred) having grade Pay of clause (B)(i) & (ii) above, by direct
Rs. 4800/- and or above. recruitment on the basis of written test
and interview.
5. The petitioner's grievance is that some of their juniors (who are
mentioned in the petition (Ms. Poonam Mehta, Sh. Kuldeep Thakur, Sh.
Purnesh Rawat, Sh. Mukesh, Sh. Pradeep Singh Rawat, Sh. Jitender Singh
Sajwan and Sh. Harish Kumar) are junior to them in the present cadre of
SJAs and that consequently they should be permitted to compete for the
examination.
6. Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel argues firstly that the
petitioners should be given the benefit of the Circular/Office Memorandum
No. AB/14017/12/88-Estt (RR) dated 25.03.1996 which inter alia states as
follows:
"2. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment in R. Prabha
Devi and others versus Government of India in Civil Appeals
Nos.2040-42 of 1987 decided on March 8, 1988 on the
judgment and order dated Feb 11, 1986 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and in continuation of
O.M. of even No. Dated 23.10.1989 Government have decided
to amend para 3.1.2 of Part. III in this Department's O.M.
No.AB/14017/12/87-Estt(RR) dated 18th March, 1988.
Accordingly, the last sentence of para 3.1.2 will stand amended
to reach as under:-
"To avoid such a situation the following note may be inserted
below the relevant service rules/column in the schedule to the
Recruitment Rules.
Where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility
service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would
also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite
qualifying/eligibility service by more than half of such
qualifying/eligibility service or two years, whichever is less,
and have successfully completed their probation period for
promotion to the next higher grade alongwith their juniors who
have already completed such qualifying/eligibility service."
7. In support of the submission, learned senior counsel urges that the
petitioners would fulfil the criteria given that they have a combined service
of more than 3½ years in the cadre of JAs and SJAs. Learned counsel relied
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Yadunath Singh v.
Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(C) 7298/2012, decided on 27.03.2014] 210
(2014) DLT 36..
8. It was argued that the rule in question visualises eligibility for three
categories or classes of employees and officers by way of selection.
9. The first is - graduate with five years' regular service in inter alia the
cadre of SJA. The second category is seven years' regular service in the post
of JA or inter alia JJA and the third category would be combined service in
the cadre of SJA/JA. In the present case, the petitioners urge that since their
juniors in the cadre of SJA (whose names have been extracted in the earlier
part of the judgment) have been allowed to compete, they too would get the
benefit of the Circular/OM dated 25.03.1996.
10. It is submitted that the meeting of the concerned committee for
review of rules which had been approached by the petitioners to be permitted
to compete, has proceeded on an entirely tangential basis to say that the
Circular/OM dated 25.03.1996 is inapplicable. It is submitted that the view
negates the rights of the petitioners to be considered to be permitted to
compete with the juniors.
11. The scope of the present proceedings - as is apparent from the
preceding narrative, is limited. It is whether the petitioners who have put in
3½ years as SJAs can be permitted to appear in the examination held for the
purpose of promotion to the post of AOJ/CM.
12. The petitioners are correct in contending that there are two categories
entitled per se to the promotional avenue - SJAs and JAs. The SJAs are
required to possess five years' regular service in the category which neither
the petitioners nor their juniors possess; equally the petitioners and their
alleged juniors are not JAs in presenti or working as such. Therefore, to trace
eligibility, if at all, the third option of combined service, which appears to
recognize that there are categories of individuals who might have put in even
ten years of combined service but would still be ineligible given the nature
of the rules, are entitled to compete.
13. In essence, the third category entitles and makes eligible those
possessing a combined eligibility service of seven years. It is important to
notice that but for such rule, SJAs with less than five years service but with
more than five years service as JAs would have been ineligible. Therefore,
the combined service rule obliterates the distinction between JAs and SJAs.
Rather, it emphasizes that the experience as JAs is more important. If that
situation is to be kept in mind, it is not the petitioners' plea that they were
seniors to the named individuals. Rather, they concede that they were
juniors.
14. In these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that even otherwise,
per se, the Circular/OM of 25.03.1996 would be inapplicable. The Court is
also of the opinion that neither they nor their alleged juniors claim eligibility
on the fact that they have five years' experience as SJA. Such being the case,
the fact is that substantial part of their service was as JAs on which both fall
back upon If that really is the position, the petitioners were not seniors to
those mentioned in para 9(i) of the writ petition.
15. As far as the submission that the Committee went wrong in denying
the applicability of Circular/OM dated 25.03.1996 is concerned, this is what
was in fact considered and stated in the minutes of 09.02.2017 by the
Committee of this Court the extracts of which are as follows:
3. (a) To consider 4 Considered. The Committee is of the
representations received view that the Office Memorandum dated
in the month of 25th march, 1996 would not be
December 2016 applicable to the representationists as it
(January 2017 from Mr. pertains to the juniors in the same
Anil Yadav, Mr. Sandeep cadre/post and it would be applicable
Kumar, Mr. Subhash only to seniors in the same cadre/post.
Chand and Mr. Manmeet The Committee observes that since the
Singh, Senior Judicial cadres/posts of Judicial Assistants and
Assistants of this Court Senior Judicial Assistants are different;
requesting for the question of inter-se seniority does
amendment in not apply. The Committee recommends
Notification rejection of the representations.
No.556/Estt/E1/DHC
dated 24.09.2016 in
respect of recruitment
rules of Admn. Officer
(Judl) and Court Master.
(b)To consider
representation dated
16.01.2017 received
from Mr. Anil Yadav,
Senior Judicial Assistant
referring to some more
facts in support of his
prayer made in his
earlier representation
dated 07.12.2016 for
amendment in the
recruitment rules for the
post of Admn. Officer
(Judl) and Court Master.
16. This Court is of the opinion that the views expressed cannot be said to
be arbitrary.
17. The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
petitioners' claim for the other relief that they were not on ad hoc basis but
were actually regularly promoted.
18. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that there is no merit
in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed along with the pending
applications.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
S.P. GARG
(JUDGE)
JULY 24, 2017/ajk
