PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope and extent of the power of the Chief Justice of a High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution vis- -vis the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 is subject matter of consideration in the instant writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to participate in the selection for the post of Assistant Review Officer, advertised by the High Court on 19.7.2014, notwithstanding the fact that he is 37 years of age, in view of the provisions of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) (Tenth Amendment) Rules, 2012 (for short ''Rules, 2012'), whereby, Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 (for short ''Rules, 1972'), was amended, thereby enhancing the upper age limit from 35 to 40 years. It is contended that Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court Officers & Staff (Condition of Service & Conduct) Rules, 1976 (for short ''Rules, 1976'), framed by the Chief Justice of this Court, in exercise of power under Article 229 of the Constitution, prescribing upper age limit to 35 years for candidates for direct recruitment on various posts in the establishment shall stand superseded, in view of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1972, which has overriding effect over any contrary provision contained in the Service Rules. It is urged that any other interpretation will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is prayed that the advertisement dated 19.7.2014, to the extent it prescribes upper age limit of 35 years for recruitment to the post of Assistant Review Officer, be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to appear in the selection process. A further relief has been claimed for quashing the advertisement, in so far as it includes 98 backlog posts of Assistant Review Officer, by contending that these posts belong to the recruitment held in the year 2009, which is still subject matter of lis pending before the Apex Court.

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the supreme authority in the matter of appointment of the officers and servants of that High Court and there can be no interference by the Legislature or the executive, except to the extent provided under Article 229 of the Constitution. It is submitted that it is only in case of Article 229 (2), which relates to conditions of service, that the power of the Chief Justice is subject to law made by the Legislature. However, in matter of appointments, his authority is supreme. It is submitted that the Rules, 1972, which have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 will not in any manner abridge the power of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution or the Rules framed by him in exercise of such power. It is further contended that the employees and staff of the High Court establishment form a separate and distinct class and thus, Article 14 will have no application.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The following issues arise for consideration before this Court :-