Delhi High Court
Bache Singh & Ors vs Delhi High Court on 20 February, 2018
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.02.2018
+ W.P.(C) 1558/2018 & CM APPL. 6397-6398/2018
BACHE SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma with
Mr. Rahul Sharma & Mr. C.K. Bhatt, Advs.
versus
DELHI HIGH COURT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(ORAL)
The petitioners seek a direction that they be provided
promotional avenues by the seniority channel. All of them are
Group 'D' employees working as Court Attendants, Ushers,
Daftaries, etc. The grievance articulated is that the existing Rules
of the High Court Establishment do not enable a seniority channel
for promotion but rather restrict the promotional avenue to qualify
in a written departmental test with typing test essential condition -
to the cadre of Restorer/Junior Judicial Assistant, in the 20% quota
set apart for promotion in that cadre (the balance 80% has to be
filled through direct recruitment). The petitioners had represented
to the High Court Establishment; the concerned Committee (the
Committee for Amendment/Review of Rules of Appointment,
Conditions of Service, etc. of Employees of the Court) by its
minutes of meeting dated 06.09.2017 rejected the representation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Rule
position in the Punjab High Court where 50% quota is being set
apart for promotion by seniority from amongst Group 'D' staff to
the cadre of Restorers. She also relied upon the judgment of the
Bombay High Court in High Court of Judicature at Bombay v.
State of Maharashtra AIR 1916 Bom. 307 where the existing rules
were set aside; she also relied upon the amendments carried out to
the Central Civil Service Rules of 2010, which provided for 10%
promotion (to the cadre of LDCs). Those amendments provided
for a 10% quota purely on the basis of seniority subject to fitness
with an added condition that upon promotion but within the
probation period, the promotee incumbent is to clear a typing test
failing which she or he would be reverted to the earlier post.
The counsel also emphasized that 70% of the vacancies as on 2003
were to be filled by seniority promotion.
3. A careful consideration of the petition and the submissions
made in support would reveal that the essential grievance is the
lack of promotional avenue based upon seniority. The existing
Rules of the Delhi High Court Establishment provide for
promotion on the basis of merit determined through a departmental
test (written and typing) for the cadre of Restorer/Junior Judicial
Assistant to the extent of 20% quota. The petitioners for various
reasons are unable to fulfil the essential eligibility condition with
respect to the typing test and therefore want parity based on either
the Punjab High Court Rules or the Central Government
Amendments of 2010. The minutes of meeting of 06.09.2017
indicate that whilst the representations were rejected, the
Committee felt that the demand for seniority-cum-promotions
should be considered along with the comprehensive exercise of
re-framing the Rules based upon the promotional prospects of all
employees of the Court, as is evident from the Committee's
direction - in the decision at Agenda Item No.2 that -
"The matter is not to be considered at this stage and
directs the Registry to examine the promotional
prospects of all the employees of this Court at different
stages and to suggest the modalities to redress the
grievance of the staff and to reduce the inter se
litigation. Deferred."
4. In these circumstances, having regard to this decision, the
Court enquired from the counsel appearing on behalf of the High
Court Establishment as to the progress made pursuant to the
direction of the Committee (of 06.09.2017). Learned counsel
indicated, upon instructions, that the comprehensive review is
under progress. However, he could not indicate any concrete steps
or timeline in this regard as to the conclusion of such review.
5. In the circumstances and having regard to the material
placed on the record, particularly, the amendments to the CCS
Rules, the Bombay High Court judgment and the Punjab High
Court Rules, a direction is issued to the Delhi High Court
Establishment to complete the comprehensive review, as early as
possible, and definitely within 4 months from today and place the
report before the Committee for early action. In the light of these
observations, the representation of the petitioners too should be
taken into account at the stage of framing the report for a
comprehensive review.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. All the
pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
kks
