HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN versus P.P. SINGH AND ANR

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 27-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 
A 
v. 
P.P. SINGH AND ANR 
JANUARY 27, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ, S.S. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Rules of High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, 1952-Rules 14, 15 
and 21(2)-Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1969-Rule 23- C 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 235-Higher Judicial Services-
Administrative powers of High Court-Full Court constituting commiltee of 
· j 
two Judges for consideration of individual merit of judicial officers for 
appointment to selection· scale-Committee making recommendations-Full 
Court by resolution taking decision-Acting Chief Justice thereupon constituting D 
committee of two Judges-Full Court on considering the report, approving 
the names of officers-Justification of-Held: Chief Justice has jurisdiction to 
constitute a Committee-Further Rule I 5 does not postulate the prior approval 
of the Full Court in relation to any action which may be initiated by the Chief 
Justice, thus High Court erred in holding constitution of the commillee illegal. 
Full Court constituted committee of two Judges for the purpose of 
consideration of individual merit of the judicial omeers of Higher Judicial 
Service for appointment to selection scale. Committee recommended that last 
five years of ACRs to be considered in the merit criteria therefor. Full Court 
E 
by resolution took decis_ion to take three good ACRs out of five into F 
consideration and regarding grant of super time scale to Rajasthan Judicial 
Service ii adopted the criteria of five good ACRs out of seven for grant of 
super time scale. Acting Chief Justice of High Court constituted a committee 
of two Judges to make recommendations for formation of ofrtciating promotee 
RHJS officers for their substantive appointment in their service and for 
promotion of RHJS officers in the ordinary scale to selection scale. Committee G 
submitted its report and the Full Court approved the names of officers who 
were found fit for grant of selection scale and deferred the case of respondents. 
Governor then issued notification and appointed the officers to the post of 
selection grade. Respondents challen11ed the non-grant of selection 11rade to 
them. High Court without dlsturbln11 the appointment of the officers held that H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 1 S.C.R. 
A the Acting Chief Justice was not authorized to constitute the two Judges 
Committee and also all the judges were not consulted, Committee appointed 
by the Acting Chief Justice alone could not evolve the merit criteria; and the 
earlier policy adopted by the Full Court could not be changed as jt provides 
for prior consultation of judges and the subsequent approval thereof could 
B nOt cure the illegality. 
c 
D 
Appellant contended that the Acting Chief Justice had the jurisdiction 
to constitute a Committee and the decision of the said Committee was 
approved by the Full Court, the earlier policy decision must be ·held to have 
been varied by High Court. 
. . ·· 
. -.. .. · . 
. · · . 
• 
. 
It was contended for the first respondent that as the power of the Chief 
Justice to constitute a Committee is governed by a statufory rule, he acted 
without jurisdiction in appointing the said Committee; 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l.l. A Reading of the Rules oi' High Court of Judicature of 
Rajasthan, 1952 shows that the Chief Justice has the requisite jurisdiction to 
constitute a Committee and its report upon consultation of all the Judges of 
. High Court in terms of Rule 15 shall become a decision of the Court. Further· 
Rule 29(2) and Rule 32 shows that irregularity which might have taken place 
E·. in the procedure laid down in Chapter III shall not affect the validity of the 
,order paSsed or anything done in the Rule!: and shall be deemed to be disposed 
of by the Court. Also the legalfiction created must also be given its full effect 
(605-E, F) 
1.2 The powers of the Chief Justice under Articles 235 and 219 of the 
F Constitution are different and distinct. Whereas control over the subordinate · 
courts vests in the High Court as whole, the.controlover High Court vests in 
· · the Chief Justices only •. Howeve..., it does not mean that. a. Full Court ~an~ot 
· authoriie Chief Justice in respect of any inatter whatsoever in relation· to 
certain matters keeping the rest of it in its«rlf by the Full Court, authorization 
G to act on its behalf in favour of the Chief Justice on a Committee of J

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