RAMJI DAS ANEJA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) TWO submissions were made by learned Counsel. In the first place, he urged that Rule 7A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 is ultra vires of the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution of India because While Article 234 vests the power of appointment of a Judicial Officer of Subordinate Judiciary in the Governor of the State, Rule 7A authorises the High Court to make promotions to the post of Civil Judge from amongst officers holding posts of Munsifs. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Munsif in a substantive capacity by the Governor and that is Hot challenged by the petitioner. The question of 'further promotion from' Inter post of Munsif to that of Civil Judge, within the Rajasthan Judicial Service, is not governed by die provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution, Article 234 provides that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial Service of the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge, shall be vested in the High Court. Thus the matter of promotion of a person belonging to the Judicial Service of the State, from the post of Munsif to the post of Civil Judge, vests entirely and solely in High Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution. The matter if clinched by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab and Haryana High Court v. State of Haryana : [1975]3SCR365 where it has been held that the control within the meaning of Article 235 of the Constitution includes the power of confirmation and promotion. Once a person is initially appointed by the Governor as a member of the Judicial Service or as a District Judge, the subsequent confirmation or promotion from one post to the another within the Service vests in the High Court. Learned Counsel had not much to say in this matter after the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was brought to his notice. The contention is, therefore, repelled.

(3.) NO other submission was made before me by the learned Counsel. The writ petition is dismissed.