Rajesh Kumar Tak vs Districts And Sessions Judge
2023 Latest Caselaw 954 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3994/2019

Rajesh Vyas S/o Shri Murli Dhar Vyas, Aged About 55 Years, Bheem Ji Ka Mohalla, Neem Ki Gali, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Districts And Sessions Court, Jodhpur, Through The District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.

2. Sunil Mehta, Senior Reader, Special Judge Cbi Cases, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5239/2018 Kheem Raj Khatri S/o Shri Jawanmal Khatri, Bye Caste Khatri, R/ o Near Iskon Plaza, Sirohi Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. District Cum Session Judge, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

2. High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General

3. Jeeva Ram Meghwal S/o Not Known, C/o Senior Munshrim Court, Sirohi Rajasthan.

4. Kailash Rawal S/o Not Known, C/o O.s. District Judge Court, Sirohi Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14930/2018 Kailash Chandra S/o Rewad Lal, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Balali, Resident Of Saini Mohalla, Luniyapura, Abu- Road, Sirohi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. District And Session Judge, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

2. High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General.

3. Jeeva Ram Meghwal S/o Veesa Ram Meghwal,, By Caste Meghwal, In Care Of Senior Munshrim Court, Sirohi (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15348/2018

1. Sanjay Modi S/o Late Shri Sukhdeo Modi, Aged About 47 Years, At Present Posted As Sheristedar Gr. I In The Court Of Special Judge, Women Atrocities, Sri Ganganagar.

2. Bhupendra Kaushik S/o Shri Brij Lal Kaushik,, Aged About 58 Years, At Present Posted As Senior Reader In The Court Of Additional District And Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri

(2 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

Ganganagar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District And Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar.

3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3966/2019 Vijay Nagori S/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Gali No. 11, Kalal Colony, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro City, Jodhpur.

2. Shri Dhanraj S/o Shri Premchand Solanki,, Sr. Munsrim, District And Sessions Court, Jodhpur Metro City, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4450/2019 Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Manmohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Mata Ki Ka Pol, Opposite Navchokiya Hospital Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur Metro City, Jodhpur.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4599/2019 Bhanwar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Sunthla, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus District And Sessions Court, Jodhpur, Through The District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5038/2019 Sunil Mehta S/o Shri Jaswant Raj Mehta, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Mehta, Resident Of 12/4, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus The District And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, Metropolitan, Jodhpur.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6493/2019

(3 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

Rajesh Kumar Tak S/o Shri Ratan Lal Tak, Aged About 59 Years, 54-B, Keshav Nagar, Gali No. 3, Near Seva Bharti Dham, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Districts And Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, District.

2. Sunil Mohnot, Aged About 57 Years, Through C/o Districts And Session Judge, Jodhpur District.

3. Mohan Lekhwani, Aged About 59 Years, Through C/o Districts And Session Judge, Jodhpur District.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6725/2019

1. Kailash Puri S/o Sh. Buddha Puri, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Gandhi Colony, Merta City, District Nagaur.

2. Gulab Chand Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Niwas Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Uuchera, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur.

3. Mool Chand Bhargaw S/o Sh. Madan Lal Bhargaw,, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Opposite Raghunath Mandir, Merta, District Nagaur.

4. Narendra Kumar Rakhecha S/o Sh. Ram Niwas,, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Vyas Colony, Nagaur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District And Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7493/2019 Ghanshyam Lal Ameta S/o Shri Manohar Lal Ameta, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 5/263, Bhindar Ki Haveli, Outside Chandpole, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus District And Sessions Judge Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15331/2019 Shivnath Singh S/o Bhan Singh, Aged About 58 Years, 174, Eidgah Road, Abu-Road, District Sirohi (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

(4 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District And Sessions Judge, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.)

3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

4. Visa Ram Kumawat S/o Dana Ji, At Present Posted At District Court, Sirohi.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18837/2019

1. Umakant Upadhyay S/o Late Sh. Laxmi Lal Ji Upadhyay, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Near Government Upper Primary School, Upadhyay Mohalla, Pur Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

2. Rajendra Prasad Joshi S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Joshi, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Gaushala Road, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara.

3. Mohammad Nasim Chipa S/o Late Sh. Nasir Mohammad Ji Chipa, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Kheradi Mohalla, Baneda, District Bhilwara.

4. Prakash Asnani S/o Sh. Kishan Chand @ Bhura Lal Asnani, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 8 Pech Area, Bhilwara.

5. Udai Lal Vaishnav S/o Late Sh. Sitaram Das Ji Vaishnav, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Gayatri Nagar, Bhilwara.

6. Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Sh. Late Sh. Samrath Lal Ji Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of 124, Shivkripa, Gali No. 1, Adarsh Nagar, Kota Road, Bhilwara.

7. Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 59 B, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara.

8. Amit Kumar Tailor S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji Tailor, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of 63- Vistar Paschim, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara.

9. Rajendra Prasad Kothari S/o Late Sh. Heera Lal Kothari, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of 2-D-8, Chandra Shekhar Ajad Nagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Of Law And Legal Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District And Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

3. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

4. Nirmal Kumar Duggar S/o Shri Shanti Lal Duggar, At Present Posted As Executive Assistant Cum P.s. At The Court Of District And Session Judge, Bhilwara.

(5 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

5. Balkishan Trivedi S/o Shri Banshi Lal Trivedi, At Present Posted As Stenographer Grade- I In The Court Of Adj (Woman Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara.

                                                                    ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Ankur Mathur
                                   Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha
                                   Mr. M.S. Godara
                                   Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
                                   Mr. Baljinder Singh Sandhu
                                   Mr. Rakesh Arora with
                                   Mr. Naresh Singh
                                   Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
                                   Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani
                                   Mr. Ashok Soni
                                   Mr. Rajesh Shah

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 18/01/2023 Pronounced on 24/01/2023

1. The above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petitions

No.18837/2019, 15348/2018, 15331/2019 & 6725/2019

have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following

reliefs:

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be restrained from including the Stenographers Gr.I and E.A. cum P.A. in the zone of eligibility for the promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim in the DPC going to be convened in the year 2019-20 and subsequent years.

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the stenographers Gr.I and E.A. cum P.A. are not eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim under Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, and any such promotion made by the respondents no.2 may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

(iii) Quashment and setting aside of the promotion order to the extent of certain persons, owing to their ineligibility or

(6 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

otherwise for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, as per the Rules in vogue.

(iv) That the respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the petitioners in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, and to promote them if they are otherwise eligible.

(v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to include the Stenographer Gr.II and Stenographer Gr.III in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, only upon fulfilling the condition laid down under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986.

(vi) that further it is prayed that record of DPC for the concerned period may be called for and be judicially reviewed.

(vii) that further it is prayed that if any proceedings/action is taken by the respondent in violation of the Rules during the pendency of the writ petition, all such proceedings/action as well as the illegal promotions may also be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

1.1 The genesis of the controversy raised in the

aforementioned petitions is traceable to sub-rule (v) of Rule 14

Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules,

1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1986"); the said Rule

14(v) (post amendment) provides for promotion to the post of

Senior Munsarim.

1.2 As reproduced in the petitions, the said Rule 14(v) of

the Rules of 1986, pre-amendment and post amendment, reads as

under:

Pre-amendment:

"14. Promotion-

(v) Selection for promotion to the post of Munsarim shall be made on the basis of merit alone. No person shall be appointed substantively as Munsarim unless

(7 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

he has been in service for at least ten years and during that period has held the post of Upper Division Clerk or a higher post including that of "Personal Assistant and Stenographers" for at least five years and has passed the Departmental Examinations of Munsarim according to the syllabus and instructions given in Schedule IV."

Post amendment:

"14. Promotion-

(v) Selection for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim shall be made on the basis of merit alone. No person shall be appointed substantively as Senior Munsarim unless he has been in service for at least ten years and during that period has held the post of Clerk Gr.I or a higher post including that of Stenographer Grade II and Stenographer Gr. III at least five years and has passed the Departmental Examinations of Senior Munsarim according to the syllabus and instructions given in Schedule IV."

2. While in the other petitions, above-numbered, (i)

the petitioners are aggrieved by their reversion from the post of

Senior Munsarim to that of the post held by them prior to their

promotion as Senior Munsarim; (ii) some of the petitioners are

aggrieved by their non-consideration for promotion to the post of

Senior Munsarim from that of Reader Grade-I and other posts, (iii)

some petitioners seek their promotion from the post of

Stenographer Grade-I to the post of Personal Assistant cum

Executive Assistant; and (iv) some of the petitions assail the

promotion of some other employees (private respondents herein)

on the post of Senior Munsarim, while questioning the validity of

the same being unlawful and contrary to the Rules in vogue. The

petitioners in those petitions above-numbered also averred that

(8 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

the said grievance of theirs was not redressed, even when they

were entitled for the same in all respects, and also that, the same

was denied even when the sufficient posts were lying vacant.

3. The foundational and skeletal facts, which

constitute the essence of the present dissension, are identical so

much so that the sequence of events, if drawn in brevity would

suffice to comprehend the issues to be addressed, and thus, in the

present adjudication, the factual matrix of the individual

petition(s) is not being portrayed in the present judgment, more

particularly, when the detailed arguments advanced on behalf of

all the parties in the instant petitions, do enable this Court in

arriving at a logical conclusion, that the sheet anchor of the claim

of the petitioners herein is the post of Senior Munsarim, either by

promotion, or continuity on the said post (subsequent to their

promotion). That apart, other ancillary prayers have also been

made in the present petitions.

4. As the averments made in the petitions would reveal,

there are two cadres involved in the present petitions, namely,

Stenographer Cadre and General Cadre (comprising Clerks,

Readers, Office Assistants and the other like posts), as reflected in

Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986, which speaks of the strength of staff.

Both the said cadres have different identified posts and channel of

promotion, but for the above-quoted amended Rule 14(v) of the

Rules of 1986 w.e.f. 19.07.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as regards inclusion

of the Stenographers Grade-I in the zone of consideration, for

promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim, submitted that prior to

amendment in the Rules of 1986, the Stenographer Grade-I

(9 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

(Sr.P.A.) carried a higher pay scale, than that of the post of

Munsarim and further the post of Stenographer Grade-I was a

gazetted post, whereas the post of Munsarim was a non-gazetted

post, and thus, there was no channel of promotion to the post of

Munsarim, which, at the relevant time, was carrying lower pay

scale.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the post(s) of Munsarim was however, upgraded to the post

of Senior Munsarim in light of the Recommendations of the Shetty

Commissions, w.e.f.01.04.2003, and accordingly, vide notification

dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Department of Personnel,

Government of Rajasthan, all the posts of Munsarim were

adjusted/merged/renamed as Senior Munsarim, while making the

necessary amendment in the Rules of 1986; the related

notification in regard to such merger was also issued by the

Department of Finance, Government of Rajasthan on 02.09.2016;

after such merger, as reflected in the said notification dated

02.09.2016, the post of Senior Munsarim which was earlier

carrying the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, was upgraded to the pay

scale of Rs.8000-13500 i.e. higher than the post of Stenographer

Grade-I.

6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that Rule 14(v) of the

Rules of 1986 (post amendment) clearly distinguishes Clerk

Grade-I or any higher post and Stenographers Grade-II & III; the

said Rule does not include Stenographer Grade-I, and hence,

when the legislature itself, in its wisdom did not include

Stenographer Grade-I for promotion to the post of Senior

Munsarim, then the impugned action of their inclusion herein

(10 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

clearly amounts to misreading and misinterpretation, of the said

Rule, on the part of the respondents, more particularly, when

there is no such channel available therefor, even in the Rules in

vogue.

6.2 Learned counsel also submits that the Rules of 1986

have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India,

with the consultation of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan; the Rules are clear and have been followed since 1986;

and since, after amendment, they do not provide for promotion

from the post of Stenographer Grade-I to that of the post of

Senior Munsarim, the impugned action of the respondents is

unsustainable in the eye of law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that

Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986 clearly provides for inter se seniority

between the Stenographers and the General Cadre, and in that

case, the members who have put in more years of service are

senior, and therefore, in view of a clear provision, the

Stenographer Grade-II and Grade-III can only be considered if

they fulfill the conditions as laid down in Rule 27 and not

otherwise; that if the members of the general cadre are senior to

them (Stenographer Cadre) and having more length of total

service as envisaged in the Rules, even the inclusion of

Stenographer Grade-II & Grade-III in the zone of consideration for

promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim is uncalled for. Thus, as

per learned counsel, such impugned action on the part of the

respondents, even to include the ineligible Stenographers Grade-II

& III is contrary to the provision of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1986.

(11 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

8. As regards the assailment of promotion of some of the

private respondents herein (employees), learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the said private respondents herein

were promoted to the post, in complete ignorance of Rules of

1986, apart from the other relevant factors, like, their date of

regularization, date of confirmation, total length of service, merit,

seniority etc. Thus, as per learned counsel, such impugned

promotion order(s) run contrary to law, and deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

9. So far as the issue of reversion of some of the

petitioners herein from the post of Senior Munsarim to the post

earlier held by them, prior to such promotion, learned counsel for

the petitioners submitted that in regard to such reversion, one of

the grounds, as taken by the respondents, is that the same was

being done in pursuance of the interim order(s) passed by the

Hon'ble Court(s). Learned counsel also submitted that in doing so,

the respondents have determined the seniority of the employees

incorrectly and also assigned such seniority with effect from an

incorrect date; such inaction on the part of the respondents,

entailed huge financial loss, apart from loss of service prospects,

to the concerned petitioners herein. Learned counsel further

submitted that the same was being done, without affording

adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners concerned, and

thus, such impugned action on the part of the respondents, being

also violative of the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable

in the eye of law.

9.1 Learned counsel also submitted that such impugned

reversion was made without even giving due consideration to the

(12 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

relevant aspects of service jurisprudence, like whether any

adverse remark was there in the service record of the concerned

employee, whether or not sufficient posts of Senior Munsarim for

promotion were available etc.; the respondents did not even

conducted an exercise to ensure that the interim orders of the

Hon'ble Courts are complied with, without making the impugned

reversions in question.

10. As regards, the other ancillary issues, learned counsel

for the petitioners advanced the submissions, which are identical

to the ones, already mentioned above, and hence, to avoid

unwarranted repetition, the same are not being narrated in the

present judgment.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to reinforce their

submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(a) State of Jharkhand Vs. Govind Singh, (2005) 10 SCC

437;

(b) J.P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC

134;

(c) M.S. Usmani & Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.,

(1995) 2 SCC 377;

(d) Sarika Digambar Lokare Vs. Chief Executive Officer,

2015 (4) BomCR 615.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior

Counsel and Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Nishant

Bapna, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submitted

that no controversy can be raised with regard to the provision of

sub-rule (v) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1986, looking into the fact

(13 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

that the amendment incorporated vide notification dated

19.07.2017 is not at all challenged by the present petitioners, and

therefore, they are not entitled to any relief from this Court, at

this belated stage.

12.1 He further submitted that the unamended Rules

specified that the persons holding the post of UDC or higher post,

including that of P.A. and Stenographers having the requisite

length of service, can be considered for promotion to the post of

Munsarim; even prior to the amendment, the Stenographers

Grade-I were entitled for and were being considered for promotion

to the post of Munsarim (the post which was later on merged into

the post of Senior Munsarim).

12.2 He also submitted that the amended Rules clarified that

the persons holding the post of Clerk Grade-I or a higher post,

including that of Stenographer Grade-II and III and having

requisite period of service, shall be considered for promotion to

the post of Senior Munsarim; thus, the said amended Rules

nowhere specify that Stenographer Grade-I cannot be considered

for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; rather it clarifies

that the persons to be promoted must not held the lower post,

than that of the Clerk Grade-I or Stenographer Grade-III, for

being included within the zone of consideration for such

promotion.

12.2.1 In regard to such interpretation, for the purpose of

inclusion of the Stenographer Grade-I within the zone of

consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim,

learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General referred to

the expression 'includes', while submitting that the said expression

(14 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

indicates that the legislature never contemplated that the

categories of persons set out in the definition are exhaustive, but

on the other hand indicates that those categories are merely

illustrative. He further submitted that as per the Stroud's Judicial

Dictionary Vol. 3 Page 1333, the said expression is an expression

of extension and not of restrictive definition and is not equivalent

to 'shall mean'.

12.2.2 In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment

rendered in The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs.

Laldee P. Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 5 Bom CR 535.

12.3 As regards the other issues like impugned reversions in

question and the promotion in question of the private

respondents, he submitted that such action on the part of the

respondents were being taken strictly in accordance with law, and

while keeping into consideration the factors like eligibility, length

of service and the relevant factors alike. Thus, as per learned

Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General, such actions taken

by the respondents, neither can be said to be contrary to the

Rules in vogue, nor contrary to law.

13. Owing to the striking likeness between the factual

submissions made by learned Senior Counsel & Additional

Advocate General for the official respondents and the learned

counsel for the private respondents, the submissions made on

behalf of the private respondents do not require reiteration, but

for the submission of the private respondents, that the petitioners

assailing the promotion of the private respondents on the post in

question, are guilty, amongst others, of the material suppression

(15 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

and concealment of relevant facts, and thus, they have not

approached this Court with clean hands.

13.1 Learned counsel for the private respondents placed

reliance on the following judgments:

(a) Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC

54;

(b) Khem Singh Deora Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

(2003) 1 RLR 845; and

(c) Shiv Charan Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors., (1994) 1 WLN 594.

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at

the Bar.

15. This Court, at the outset, observes that the

recommendations made by the Shetty Commission, were for the

welfare of the officers/officials of the staff of the Subordinate

Courts, and were implemented retrospectively with effect from

01.04.2003, and the related notification was issued on

19.07.2017, and the same was preceded by the notification dated

02.09.2016 pertaining to the revised pay scale(s) for the posts,

amongst others, the post in question i.e. Senior Munsarim, in light

of the recommendations of the Commission.

15.1 Indisputably, the recommendations, being implemented

with retrospective effect i.e. 01.04.2003, enabled the staff of the

Subordinate Courts to derive fruits therefrom in the form of,

amongst others, financial benefits etc.

(16 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

15.2 The amendment in the Rules, as per learned Senior

Counsel and Additional Advocate General, remained unassailed till

date, and such factual submission has not been disputed on behalf

of any of the petitioners herein.

16. Apart from the above, this Court is convinced with the

thrust of arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel &

Additional Advocate General that the expression & phrase

"including that of Stenographer Grade-II and Stenographer

Grade-III" as contained in the aforementioned amended Rule

14(v) of the Rules of 1986, though exhaustive in nature, but at

the same time, the posts of Stenographer Grade-II & III are

merely illustrative, and the same cannot mean clear and

unambiguous exclusion of the Stenographer Grade-I, from the

zone of consideration and eligibility, for promotion to the post of

Senior Munsarim; more particularly, when the unamended Rule

14(v) clearly states, "including that of "Personal Assistant and

Stenographers".

16.1 Although the amended Rule 14(v) specifies only

Stenographer Grade-II & III, but since the same cannot be

construed to clearly exclude Stenographer Grade-I, from the zone

of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Munsarim; as,

if it is done, the same would result into an unwarranted flood of

litigation, more than, that is already pending before this Hon'ble

Court, on the issues in question. Moreover, while making such

observation, this Court is conscious of the legislative intent and

the prescription of service jurisprudence, which clearly lay down

that the person (Stenographer Grade-I - in the present case), who

is higher in rank than Stenographer Grade-II & III, shall not be

(17 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

disentitled for promotion on a higher post of Senior Munsarim in

question; more so, while applying the Rule of Purposive

Interpretation, in regard to the amended Rule in question.

16.2 Thus, without making any observation on the

interpretation and construction of the amended Rule 14(v) of the

Rules of 1986, as derived by the present petitioners, this Court

observes that the purposive interpretation, as made by the official

respondents, while undertaking the impugned exercise, cannot, in

any way, be said to be against the prescriptions of law (service

jurisprudence, in particular).

17. As regards the impugned reversions, this Court

observes that as a consequence of the above conclusion arrived at

by this Court, the above-numbered writ petitions, which assail the

reversion of the petitioners, on count of Stenographer Grade-I

having become eligible/included in the exercise in question, also

deserves dismissal, because once the Stenographer Grade-I either

becomes eligible or falls within the zone of consideration for

promotion, to the post of Senior Munsarim, looking to their merit

as per the Rules, then the consequential and automatic reversion/

exclusion of the other persons concerned, would be justified.

18. Furthermore, as regards the non-consideration for

promotion, promotion of the private respondents and other

ancillary issues and assailments, this Court, on a careful

consideration of the averments made in the petitions as well as in

the replies so filed, finds that such actions were taken by the

officials respondents, while keeping into due consideration the

position of Rules in vogue, as also the tenets of law governing the

field pertaining the issues in question; this Court also finds that

(18 of 18) [CW-3994/2019]

such actions were taken by the official respondents, after due

consideration of the material as available in the service record of

the concerned person(s), for the said purposes. Thus, in regard to

such assailments also, the submissions made by learned counsel

for the petitioners do not weigh with this Court.

19. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the

petitioners thus, do not render any assistance to the case of the

petitioners herein.

20. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present

petitions do not merit acceptance.

21. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)