M C TIKEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition was working as Superintendent in Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court. By notification dated 22.1.92 issued by the Registrar, Imphal Bench, Gauhati High Court, the two posts of Assistant Registrar in Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court were redesignated as Assistant Registrar (Administration) and Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Shri Brajakumar Sarma, a Judicial Officer of Manipur Judicial Service was acting as Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Shri Sarma was promoted as Chief Judicial Magistrate and as a consequence the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) fell vacant in the year 1992. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, (For short the "Rules") the Assistant Registrar is to be appointed from among the State Judicial Service Grade-Ill, or by promotion from among the Gazetted Officers of the High Court's Service belonging to Class-II-B, Class II-C and Class II-D or from among the Advocates of not less than five years continuous practice at the Bar. Proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules stipulates that no Gazetted Officer of the High Court belonging to any of the classes mentioned in this sub-rule shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant registrar (Judicial) unless he has got a Law Degree. The petitioner's case in this writ petition is that in the year 1992 when the aforesaid post of Assistant registrar fell vacant, he was the only gazetted Officer amongst the Gazetted Officers belonging to Class-II-B, Class II-C and Class II-D of the High Court service who had a law degree and, therefore, he was the only Gazetted officer eligible for appointment to the said post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial). But with a view to deny the petitioner promotion to the said post of Assistant registrar (Judicial) in Imphal Bench, a notification dated 29.7.93 (Annexure- 1/31) was issued cancelling the notification dated 22.1.92 by which one of the posts of Assistant Registrar was designated as the Assistant Registrar (Judicial). Petitioner's further case is that after the said notification dated 29.7.93 was issued, by notification dated 1/9/97 (Annexure-A/30) issued by the registrar, Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the respondent No. 5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, was promoted to the post of Assistant registrar. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for quashing the aforesaid notifications dated 29.7.93 (Annexure-A/31) and dated 1.9.93 (Annexure-A/30) and for directing the respondents to appoint him to the post of Assistant registrar (Judicial) with retrospective effect.

(2.) Mr. Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules only an officer of the High Court service belonging to Class II-B, Class II-C and Class II-D having a law degree was eligible for appointment as Assistant registrar (Judicial). The respondent No. 5 who did not have a law degree had filed a writ petition (which was registered as Civil Rule No. 642/92 before this court) claiming promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Imphal Bench of the Gauhati High Court and in the said Civil Rule, the High Court as well as the registrar, Imphal Bench had been impleaded as. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 5. In the said Civil Rule No. 642/92 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Gauhati High Court and the registrar, Imphal Bench, gauhati High Court, pleading inter alia that the third vacancy in the post of Assistant Registrar (Judicial) was to be filled up by holder of law degree and the petitioner (Shri N. Bijoy Singh) who has got no law degree was not eligible for appointment as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) in view of proviso to sub- rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules. In view of the said pleadings in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Gauhati High Court and the Registrar, Imphal Bench, Gauhati High Court, Mr. Lalit Kumar explained that the petitioner was hopeful that he being the only gazetted officer possessing law degree would be appointed to the post of Assistant registrar (Judicial) in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the Rules. But the hopes of the petitioner were shattered by the exercise of power by the Chief Justice in cancelling the earlier notification dated 22/1/92 classifying the post of Assistant Registrars as Assistant registrar (Judicial). He cited the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Larshram Randhoni Devi vs. Gauhati High Court, 2000 (1) GLT 36, for the proposition that the Chief Justice of the High Court in exercise of his absolute discretion under the rules cannot do anything and everything according to his pleasure by setting at naught rules and principles. Mr. Lalit Kumar submitted that since the cancellation of the earlier notification dated 22/1/92 by the impugned notification dated 29.7.93 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the said notification dated 29.7.93 should be quashed and the classification of the Assistant Registrars in Imphal Bench as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) and Assistant Registrar (Administration) and the earlier notification dated 22/1/92 should continue. He further submitted that if the impugned notification dated 29.7.93 is quashed and the classification of the Assistant registrars as Assistant Registrar (Judicial) Assistant Registrar (Administration) continued as per the earlier notification dated 22.1.92, the petitioner being the only eligible candidate amongst the officers of true Class II-B, Class II-C and Class II-D of High Court service at Imphal Bench who had Haw degree should be promoted to the post of Assistant registrar with retrospective effect from the date on which the respondent No. 3, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, was promoted by the notification dated 1.9.97. Mr. Lalit Kumar further stated that in the meanwhile the respondent No. 5, Shri N. Bijoy Singh, has retired from service and the only consequence would be that the petitioner would be senior to Shri N. Bijoy Singh in the rank of Assistant registar.

(3.) Mr. A. Nilomani Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, produced records to show that the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court did not in any way act arbitrarily in cancelling the earlier designation of the Assistant Registrars as Assistant registrar (J) and Assistant registrar (Administration) and had taken the decision to ensure administrative efficiency. He further submitted that under Article 229 of the Constitution the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court had powers to pass such orders as he deems fit for ensuring administrative efficiency and such exercise of powers by the Chief Justice cannot be interfered with by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution in exercise of powers of judicial review except in cases where such interference is permissible in certain settled principles relating to judicial review. In support of his submission, he cited the decision in the case of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Chandra Paliwal and others, (1998) 3 SCC 72, Mr. Nilomani Singh further submitted that in any case the entire writ petition has become academic since the respondent No. 5,,Shri N. Bijoy Singh, has in the meanwhile retired from service and the question of seniority between the petitioner and the said respondent No. 5 is no longer relevant even for the purpose of promotion to higher post.