GAJENDER VOHRA Vs. HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred initially on 11th March, 1992, seeking directions against the respondents to declare the result of the selection test held on 16th September, 1990 for the posts of Superintendent/Court Master and to immediately appoint the person selected therein against the vacancies falling under 25% selection quota.

(2.) The background in which the petition came to be filed maybe stated that on 15th September, 1972, the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") came in to force. The first test for selection to the post of Court Master/Superintendent under the Rules was held in 1972 and a panel of successful candidates was prepared. The second test for selection to the said post was held in 1974 and a panel of successful candidates was prepared. The third test for selection took place in 1983 for the post in question in which a panel of 29 successful candidates was prepared. The fourth test for selection was held on 26th October, 1985 in which a panel of 12 successful candidates was prepared. In the first three selections, appointments were given to all the candidates, who were enpanelled. In the fourth test, out of the 12 enpanelled candidates, appointment was given only to the first three candidates. On 16th August, 1988, Rules were amended providing for filling up of 75% posts by promotion on the basis of seniority cum suitabilty and 25% by selection by merit on the basis of written test and interview. On 28th August, 1990, a notification (Annexure-P1) was issued for filling up of two posts of Superintendent/Court Master under selection quota. Examination in pursuance to the notification was held on 16th September, 1990 in which 36 candidates appeared. Result of the examination was not declared. Pending declaration of the result, in the month of October, 1990,8 posts of Superintendent/Court Masters were filled up under the seniority quota and in November, 1991, 5 more posts were filled up under the seniority quota. The candidates, who had appeared in the written test, made representations to the respondents for declaration of the result and for filling up of the posts under the selection quota. Result was not declared which necessiated in the petitioner approaching the Court by filing the writ petition.

(3.) Notice in the petition was issued on 21st May, 1992 and on 21st July, 1992, an order was made restraining the filling up of the post of Suptrintendent/Court 612 Master even under the promotion quota either on regular or on ad hoc basis. It was made clear that the restraint order will not debar the respondents from dedaring the result of examination held in September, 1990 or for making appointments pursuant to the declaration of the result. On 7th August, 1992, result of the written examination was declared. When the matter came on 10th August, 1992 before the Court, it was noticed that though the result had been declared but selection had not been made. The following order was passed by the Court:- "It is indeed unfortunate that of all the organisations it is this Court which has not filed a reply despite another opportunity having been granted to it on the last date of hearing. At the time of arguments we were first informed that a result has been declared of the examination which was held in September, 1990. We, however, find that this statement is only partially correct. On 7th August, 1992, a document appears to have been issued under the signature of the Registrar of this Court giving ten roll numbers of candidates who have qualified in the written test and it is further stated therein that "The date(s) of interview will be intimated to the successful candidates later on". The declaration of the result pursuant to the examination held in September, 1990 should have ordinarily meant the selection of the candidates within the quota but by this document of 7th August, 1992 no final selection has yet been made. It is quite obvious that this document has been issued on the last working date prior to today keeping in mind the hearing of the writ petition today, while making no attempt to file any reply to the writ petition. By observing that the dates for interview will be intimated later on also does not indicate as to when the process of selection, commenced two years ago, will be completed. The respondents should inform this Court on the next date of hearing as to when the interviews are expected to be held. The interim orders restraining any appointment to the post of Superintendent/Court Master would continue till the next date of hearing and if any appointmentof Superintendent/ Court Master on ad hoc basis has already been made and its term comes to an end on or before the next date of hearing, that ad hoc appointment shall not continue. Adjourned to 27th August, 1992. We are informed by Mr. S.C. Rawal, Deputy Registrar, who is present in Court, that there are 13 persons who are working as ad hoc Superintendent/Court Masters. We make it clear that unless appointments as a result of the examination in question held in September, 1990 are made on or before 31st August, 1992, the ad hoc appointment of the said 13 incumbents shall not continue beyond that date."