AMAR SINGH CLERK OF COURT OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUB-JUDGE AMRITSAR Vs. CHIEF JUSTICE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two salient constitutional issues which arise in this reference to the Full Bench may be conveniently formulated in the following terms:-- (1) Whether the control of the High Court over District Courts and the Courts Subordinate thereto, as envisaged by Article 235 of the Constitution, extends to all the functionaries attached to the said Courts. (2) If so, whether the promotion of such functionaries is exclusively within the ambit of the control of the High Court. The facts giving rise to the above and also other legal issues are not in serious dispute. Amar Singh, petitioner, joined Government service in 1944, but on the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary, he was assigned to the latter, as a Clerk, on 28th February, 1965. He was later promoted as an Assistant and confirmed as such and, at present, is holding the post of Clerk of Court to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar. He Is a graduate but his particular claim is that he belongs to the Kamboj community which has been declared as a backward class by the Government. Reliance is placed on Chapter 18-A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, for the averment that for promotion to the posts of Superintendents, the Clerks who are graduates are to be given preference and further that such promotion is to be made by way of selection from amongst the Assistants. It is averred that out of the 12 Assistants working in the District of Amritsar, the petitioner is the only one who belongs to the backward class and seniority-wise he ranks at No. 2, one Sampuran Singh being the only one ranking higher to him.

(2.) It has been then averred that for promotion to one post of Superintendent which has fallen vacant, the District and Sessions Judge, Amristar, has recommended the names of Sampuran Singh above-said and one Man Singh who is alleged to be junior to the petitioner. He claims that Sampuran Singh being only a matriculate, the petitioner is the only Assistant entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, for unknown reasons, the name of the petitioner has been excluded from the recommendation made to the Hon'ble High Court by the District and Sessions Judge. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation to the High - Court through the Registrar, that his name should also be included in the panel of persons who are to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, but this was rejected vide intimation Annex-ure 'B' conveyed to him. Particular reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on the Punjab Government instructions dated the 12th September, 1963, and the 14th January, 1964, Annexures 'C' and 'C.1', to the effect that reservations for scheduled castes and backward classes should be made in accordance with the method prescribed therein. It is claimed that by virtue of these instructions, the petitioner who belongs to the backward class has to be selected in preference to the other officials and consequently it was incumbent on the District and Sessions Judge to recommend the petitioner's name for appointment to the post. Indeed, it is the case that the petitioner is the only person who can be so promoted to the post of Superintendent in view of the instructions Annexures 'C' and 'C-l' which have been issued under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India and which confer a preferential right of promotion upon the petitioner for holding the higher post. tO reiterate his claim for promotion, the petitioner made another representation vide Annexure 'D' dated 20th February, 1971, but the same had not even been replied to. The gravamen of the petitioner's claim is that by virtue of the Government instructions contained in Annexures 'C' and 'C-l' he is not only entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent but indeed he is the only eligible candidate for the same.

(3.) The written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Registrar of this Court. Therein the factual averments in paras 1 to 3 of the petition are not controverted. However, as regards para. 4 it is pointed out that directly the relevant provisions applicable to the case of the petitioner are the Rules for Appointment and Control of Clerks of Court, (now Superintendents) to the District and Sessions Judges. The said Rules have been reproduced in extenso in the return. It has been averred that there are in fact 10 posts of Assistants in the general line in Amritsar Sessions Division and the petitioner ranks at No. 5 in the seniority list. It is admitted that no other Assistant in that District belongs to the backward classes. The reason pleaded for the exclusion of the petitioner's name from the recommendations made for promotion to the post of Superintendent is that the District and Sessions Judge did not consider him fit for promotion and also because the official's knowledge in civil and criminal law was not considered to be adequate. It is admitted that the first representation of the petitioner on the subject was rejected vide orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the second application made by the petitioner was not replied to because by then the matter had become sub judice due to the filing of the present writ petition. In regard to the Punjab Government instructions on the point it is averred that the members of the backward classes whose yearly income exceeds Rs. 18,800/cease to enjoy the privileges granted in their favour. The petitioner's income having now exceeded that amount he, therefore, is not entitled to claim any such preferential privilege.