K B VASIST Vs. HONERABLE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an officer of this Court challenging the seniority assigned to respondents 3 to 5 over the petitioner in respect of selection to the posts of Deputy Registar made by order dated 3rd September 1990.

(2.) The petitioner is at present on deputation as Officer on Special Duty to Lt.Governor, Delhi. The petitioner worked as a Superintendent in this Court since the year 1969 till he was appointed as assistant Registrar in the year 1980. In the year 1984 certain posts of Deputy Registrar fell vacant. A Departmental Promotion Committee(hereinafter referred to as the D.P.C.) was constituted. Certain guidelines were prescribed by the then Chief Justice. On the basis of the grading given by the D.P.C., five Assistant Registrars were immediately appointed against the then available posts and a further panel was drawn to meet the future vacancies likely to fall vacant in the near future. The petitioner was placed at S.No.1 in the said panel. The panel was however not implemented and when a vacancy arose the seniormost Assistant Registrar was appointed as Deputy Registrar in the year ]985. One post of Deputy Registrar fell vacant in August 1990. The then Chief Justice created one additional post of Joint Registrar and four posts of Deputy Registrar in August 1990. A D.P.C. was constituted to make selection to fill up the permanent post as well as additional posts of Deputy Registrar. The petitioner was selected for being appointed as a Deputy Registrar. Though he was the seniormost Assistant Registrar, he was placed at s.no.4 i.e. below respondents 3 to 5 in She select list recommended by the D.P.C. The Chief Justice accepted the recommendations of the D.P.C. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made representation against the said selection which was rejected.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the then Chief Justice took over in 1988 as Chief Justice of this Court and was to relire in September 1990. However,one post of Joint Registrar and four posts of Deputy Registrar were created on the eve of his retirement and were also tilled in the shortest possible period by a procedure which was never followed in the past. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had been working as Assistant Registrar since 1980 and would have become' Deputy Registrar in 1985 itself if the panel of 1984 was implemented. Respondents 3 to 5 were not even Assistant Registrars at that time. He submitted that if four posts of Deputy Registrar were not created, respondent no.3 would not have been within the zone of consideration. He further submitted that the D.P.C. made the recommendations on the basis of the confidential reports without interviewing the candidates. Furthermore, the confidential reports of the petitioner for the year 1989 and 1990 were not available before the D.P.C. since they were with the borrowing department. Thus, the non-consideration of the confidential reports of the petitioner had prejudicially affected his grading in the list. He submilted that the promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar should not be made on the basis of confidential reports only because a fair evaluation of performance cannot be done on the basis of confidential reports because confidential reports do not correctly reflect the merit of the candidate. Learned counsel submitted that both the immediate superior officers of the petitioner i.e. Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar who were responsible for writing the confidential reports of the petitioner were not favourably inclined towards the petitioner because their appointment as Assistant Registrar was challenged by the petitioner in a writ filed by him in the year 1979 before the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the petitioner had excellent record before 1984 and after 1989 and he has been assessed Very Good. The reason for not getting the same report from 1984 to 1988 was the animosity the immediate superiors had against the petitioner. It was further submitted that no distinction is to be made between remarks "Good" and "Very Good". Learned counsel submitted that as per the previous guidelines issued fay the Chief Justice various aspects arc to be considered before making recommendation in a selection post like age, length of service, educational qualifications, seniority, outstanding contribution, experience coupled with confidential report etc. In the present case, there was a deviation from the established procedure and none of the other criteria were considered by the D.P.C. before making the recommendations. The recommendations of the D.P.C. disturbing the seniority in the feeder grade has affected the right of the petitioner to be promoted as Joint "Registrar. Learned counsel further alleged that respondent no.3 was Principal Private Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Chief Justice was also a member of the D.P.C. He. therefore, gave preference to his own personal staff and the_said_Principal Private Secretary though was much junior was placed at s.no.1 as against the petitioner who was the seniormost. Learned counsel further submitted that the additional posts of Deputy Registrar i.e. the newly created posts were temporary and as such only the person who was at s.no.l would be appointed in a permanent post and in case the temporary posts were sot sanctioned, the other four candidates in the list would lave to be reverted. This would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the former Chief Justice bad issued specific guidelines that whenever promotions are made to a selection post, the inter-se seniority in the lower grade should be maintained. These guidelines were not placed either before the Selection Committee or before the Chief Justice. Learned counsel submitted that in the year 1985 when the Selection Committee had disturbed the seniority and recommended that a junior Assistant Registrar be placed higher in seniority as Deputy Registrar, the then Chief Justice had on review restored the seniority. Thus when Shri S.B,Vohra was placed lower in seniority as Deputy Registrar to Shri R-S.Longia and Shri R.S.Chhabra, on a representation made by Shri Vohra his seniority was restored. Learned counsel submitted that the past practice had been given a go bye. Learned counsel referred to Rule 8(1) of Delhi Higher Judicial Service and submitted that the rule was being followed even incase of High Court employees. The petitioner did not challenge the selection but challenges the seniority assigned to respondents 3 to 5 vis-a-vis the petitioner.