S K BAHARAL Vs. ADMINISTRATOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioners, who are working in the subordinate courts of Delhi, have challenged the Administrative Instructions dated 22nd September, 1978 (Annexure- P.3) issued by the High Court of Delhi and the consequent promotions of respondents 4 and 5 as Assistants and respondents 6 to 15 as Upper Division Clerks from the post of Naib Nazirs, which belong to Process Serving Establishment, and not to General Line.

(2.) The relevant facts set out in the petition are that the petitioners are working in the subordinate courts in the Ministerial Establishment (General Line) and are governed under the provisions of Chapter 18-A of the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (Volume 1), in the matter of appointment and promotion. They have right to be promoted as Upper Division Clerks, whereas Naib Nazirs under these rules have no right to be promoted as Upper Division Clerks. As a matter of fact the ministerial staff in the subordinate courts have been divided into two categories i.e. the general line establishment and the process serving establishment. The two categories of services are separate and independent of each other for the purposes of appointment and promotion. Process serving establishment shall, for the purposes of appointment and promotion, be treated as separate from the general line establishment.

(3.) The High Court has issue dinstructions dated 22nd September, 1978 on the Administrative Side (Anexure P.3) which has provided that till the draft rules, governing appointment and conditions of service of the employees of subordinate courts are finalised, appointment/promotion to the posts of Readers/Opper Division Clerks be made purely on ad hoc basis from the general line officials and Naib Nazirs in the ratio of 6:1 i.e. six candidates from the general line and one candidate from the process serving establishment (Naib Nazirs) on the condition that the said appointment would not confer any right on the persons so appointed for regular appointment, which would be made in accordance with the rules under consideration. According to the petitioners these Instructions are violative of Rules contained in Chapter 18-A of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders. Rule II of Punjab High Court Rules (Volume 1), classifies various ministerial officers of the lower courts and according to this classification, the ministerial officers from Nos. (1) to (8) shall be classified as General Lines and Nos.(9) to (II) shall be classified as Process Serving Establishment. In note, it has been clarified that although all these posts form ajoint cadre, the process-serving establishment shall for the purpose of promotion be treated as separate from the general line up to the post of Civil Nazir. The Civil Nazir's post shall be treated as equivalent to the grade ofRs.30-70/25 and in the general line for promotion to the grade of Rs.40-90/35-75 and upwards. Rule I refers to such employees of subordinate courts as Ministerial Establishment. According to Rule VI, appointments to the higher grades of the ministerial establishment should ordinarily be made by seniority from lower grades. In para-7 of the petition, the petitioners have stated that both the categories of services are promoted in accordance with the provisions of Rules VI in Chapter 18-A ibid. It is evident that each employee is entitled to be promoted in his own category of service, i.e. the lower division clerk of the general line category is entitled to be promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the general line category and the Process Server is entitled to be promoted to the post of Naib Nazir/Madad Naib Nazir and the Naib Nazir/Madad is entitled to be promoted to the post of Civil Nazir (U.D.C.) in the process serving establishment. In fact according to the petitioners, respondent No.3 followed the aforesaid Rule VI and made the promotions, in the general line establishment, strictly in accordance with the said Rule VI till the year 1978, when it received executive instructions from respondent No.2 (on the administrative side) in the letter dated 22nd September, 1978 and stopped adhering to Rule VI. As a result of this policy, the respondents 4 to 15, who are previously Naib Nazirs, have been promoted as Upper Division Clerks, which is against the Rules and some of them i.e. respondents 4 and 5 have been further promoted from the posts of Upper Division Clerks to the posts of Assistants during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioners, therefore, have prayed that since the promotions of respondents 4 to 15, as aforesaid, is against the rules, those appointments being violative thereof cannot be legally sustained.