CHANDER BHAN versus HOTILAL GUPTA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 09-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
• 
CHANDER BHAN 
v. 
HOTILAL GUPTA AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 9, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Punjab Courts Act, 1918/ High Court Rules and Orders Vol. 1 
Chapter XVIII A: Section 35(3)/Rules II, IV & VI-Promotion to the 
post of Upper Division Clerk-Rule of rotation-Whether applicable to 
the establishment of Judge, Small Causes Court. 
One post of Upper Division Clerk/English Clerk fell vacant in 
the Small Causes Court. Appellant made his claim to the post on the 
footing that he was a graduate and on the basis of Rule of Rotation 
embodied in Rule VI of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I, 
Respondent No. 1 made his claim on the basis of seniority. The Judge, 
Small Causes Court took the view that the appellant was entitled to 
promotion in preference to Respondent No. 1 because of the rule of 
rotation. On an Administrative Appeal, the District & Sessions Judge 
held that the rule of rotation was not applicable to the establishment of 
Judge, Small Causes Court, and appointed Respondent No. 1 as Upper 
Division Clerk. The Appellant preferred a departmental appeal which 
was heard by a Single Judge on the Administrative side of the High 
Court. He took the view that the promotion in question could he made 
by the District & Sessions Judge, and should he in accordance with the 
rule of rotation. 
Respondent No. 1 challenged the said decision by way of a Writ 
Petition. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and held that not 
only initial appointments but also appointments by promotion were to 
be made by the Judge, Small Causes Court and not by the District & 
Sessions Judge, and that the rule of rotation was not applicable. 
Against the High Court's decision, the appellant bas preferred 
this appeal contending that the promotion in question could only he 
made by the District & Sessions Judge and that the rule of rotation was 
applicable even to the appointment by promotion. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. Whenever a specific mention is. made regarding a 
H 
133 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
particular officer of an establishment in a rule, that particular rule 
would normally apply to that establishment alone and the powers con-
ferred by that rule would be conferred on the officer mentioned in the 
. rule. Rule VI(I) of the High Court Rules speaks of appointments to the 
higher grades of the ministerial establishments and states that these 
appointments should ordinarily be made by seniority from lower grades 
B provided that the officer to be promoted possesses the qualifications pre-
scribed. The first proviso to that rule goes on to say that the permanent 
vacancies in the original grade of Rs. 75-5-125 shaH be filled in by the 
District & Sessions Court by rotation as set out in the said sub-rule (1) 
of Rule VI. The first part of Rule VI deals with appointments by promo-
tion to the higher grade of ministerial establishment. Generally it must 
C be held applicable to the establishment of the District & Sessions Court 
as well as that of the Judge, Small Causes Court. This part, however, 
does not deal specificially with the question as to who is the officer competent 
to promote. In view of this, the proviso can only be construed as laying 
down thiit, where the power of appointment by promotion is vested in the 
District & Sessions Judge, in making appointments by promotion to fill 
D in the permanent vacancies in the said original grade of Rs. 75-5-125, 
rule of rotation set out' in the first proviso to clause (I) of Rule VI should 
ordinarily be followed. It is not disputed that there is a separate Cadre 
for the Court of Small Causes. Rule IV (3) shows that the fll'St appoint-
ment of the ministerial officers in the Court of Small Causes is to be 
made by the Judge of the Small Causes Court. [139F-H; 140A-C] 
E 
2. A reading of sub-section (I) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 the 
High Court Rules, and Notification issued makes it clear that appoint-
ments by promotion to the posts in the entire ministerial cadre other than 
those in the process serving and mental establishments in the Court of 
Small Causes have to be made by the Judge, Court of Small Causes and 
F the first proviso to Rule VI(I) prescribing the rule of rotation bas no 
application to such appointments. Moreover, it would be unreasonable 
to apply the principle of rotation to the Court of Small Causes where 
there is only one U .D.C. The principle of rotat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.