POONAM CHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Shri Poonam Chand has prayed for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order dated 19th April, 1978 passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice K.D. Sharma as the Administrative Judge, and the order dated 22nd April, 1978 passed by the District Judge Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the District Judge).

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under: The petitioner Poonam Chand and Shri Sheo Dutt Harsh, respondent No. 3 here in are employees in the Ministerial Establishment of the Court of District Judge at jodhpur and the terms and conditions of their service are governed by the Rajasthan Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner joined service as Lower Division Clerk on 1st October, 1947 in the then Chief Court of the former State of Jodhpur He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 14th April, 1954 and he was promoted as Assistant with effect from 1st November, 1969

(3.) IN the writ petition the petitioner has submitted that he had been duly appointed on the post of Munsarim and that the only remedy available to respondent No. 3 was to file an appeal under Rule 20(2) of the Rules against the order dated 29th March 1976 whereby the petitioner was appointed as Munsarim and that Respondent No. 3 having failed to file any appeal against the aforesaid order under Rule 20(2) of the Rules, the representation submitted by him against the aforesaid order before the Registrar of this Court was not competent and could not be accepted. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further submitted that the Hon'ble Administrative Judge had no jurisdiction to consider the said representation of respondent No. 3 and pass orders thereon and that all the Judges of this Court alone are competent to drat with an appeal or representation filed against an order of a District Judge. The petitioner, in his writ petition, has further submitted that the order dated 19th April, 1978 was passed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to make his submission with regard to the representation submitted by respondent No. 3 and the said representation was allowed without giving any notice to the petitioner and the order dated 19th April, 1978 was thus passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also submitted that by order dated 29th March, 1976, the petitioner had been promoted on a substantive vacancy and that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 24 of the Rules, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed on the post of Munsarim at the end of the pet and of one and half years and that as a result of the reversion from the post of Munsarim to the post of Head Copyist under the impugned order, the petitioner has been reduced in rank in contravention of the provisions ofArticle 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders on the ground that they are volatile of the fundamental rights of the petitions guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution in as much as the Hon'ble Administrative Judge, while considering the representation of respondent No. 3 did not give an opportunity of hearing, to the petitioner and thus did not consider the case of the petitioner on merits.