R DAYAL Vs. LT GOVERNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23.5.1974 the petitioners approached this court seeking redressal of their grievances and praying for issuance of the following directions:-

(2.) Rule D.B. was issued on 10.9.1974. On 10.2.1981 the petition came up for final hearing. It was noticed that actual date notices had been issued to all the respondents. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 stated that counter affidavit filed at the show cause stage may be treated as a counter affidavit by way of reply to the writ petition. Hearing was adjourned from time to time. On 5.10.1981 after hearing learned counsel for the parties the bench observed that while keeping the petition pending, certain interim directions deserves to be issued to the respondents on one of the issues raised before the Court. Instead of stating the facts, the dispute involved and the respective stand of the parties in our own words, it will be but appropriate that we reproduce the order, which was passed on 5.10.1981 in this case, so as to form part of this judgment, which we hereby do.

(3.) As already mentioned, the rules regulating the Delhi Judicial Service were framed and notified on 27.8.1970. These rules were framed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in consultation with the High Court of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3, the DJS was constituted with effect from the date of commencement of the rules and was to have two grades of officers, Grade I and Grade II. Recruitment to the service was to be effected by a selection committee, the constitution of which was specified in Rule 7. Part III of the rules dealt with 'Initial Recruitment' , perhaps more appropriately referable as the 'initial constitution' of the service. Rule 8 provided that the initial recruitment was to be made by the Administrator of Delhi upon the recommendation of the selection committee referred to in Rule 7. However, for purposes of initial recruitment the selection committee was to recommend suitable persons from amongst" (a) Subordinate Judges and Law Graduate Judicial Magistrates working in the union Territory of Delhi on deputation from other states; (b) Members of Civil Judicial cadre of States whose names may be recommended by their respective State Governments for appointment; and (c) Members of the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service, who are law Graduates." The consents of the officer and parent Government were necessary for appointment to the service. Rule 12 provided that the number of officers to be appointed from the Stated of Punjab and Haryana was not to be less than the number of posts borne on the cadre of the said States for the purpose of the Union Territory of Delhi. Under Rule 20, persons appointed to the service at the initial recruitment were to stand confirmed with effect from the date of appointment whereas other candidates appointed subsequently were to be on probation for a period of two years. The only two other Rules which are relevant for our present purposes are Rules 24 and 25 in Part VI dealing with 'Pay' and they are in the following terms: