LexHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN versus RAMESH CHAND PALIWAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN A v. RAMESH CHAND PALIWAL AND ANR. FEBRUARY 19, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 226, 229, 235 and 146--Powers of Chief Justice and other Judges of High Court-Posts above Deputy Registrar filled up by bringing C officers from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on deputation-Directions by Division Bench to the Registrar to prepare a report whether the posts can be manned by High Court staff and to place the report before Full Court- Validity of-Held, such a direction is contrary to Article 229 and also overrides Rule 2-A-Chief Justice of High Court is the supreme authority in D the matter of appointment of High Court staff-Judges of High Court individually and all the Judges collectively cannot alter a constitutional provision or the rules made by the Chief Justice-Power of Chief Justice of High Court under Article 229 is akin to the powers of Chief Justice of India under Article 146--Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 : Rule 2A. E Articles 235 and 229-Control over Subordinate Courts and High Court administration-Distinction between-Held, control over Subordinate Courts vests in the 'High Court' but High Court administration vests in the 'Chief Justice'. "' Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the promotion of F respondent No. 2 on the post of Deputy Registrar. During the course of hearing, a point was raised by Respondent No. 2 that the High Court staff were not promoted above the post of Deputy Registrar and the higher posts were filled up by bringing officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service/Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service on deputation, causing frustration amongst the G establishment of the High Court. The Court, though of the opinion that the .I' point raised was not necessary for disposal of the writ petition, issued a direction to the Registrar to prepare a report whether the posts on which officers belonging to Rajasthan Judicial Service were appointed could be manned by the High Court staff, and to place the said report before the Full H 961 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] l S.C.R. A Court. Aggrieved by the said direction, the present appeal was preferred. B The contention of the appellant was that the Judges of the High Com1 were not competent while deciding the main controversy to isime the impugned directions which was contrary to the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution and purports to undermine the authority of the Chief Justice. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The impugned direction issued to the Regi~1rar to prepare a report, as to whether the posts in the High Court on which Officers on deputation are appointed, can be manned by the High Court ~1aff is patently C contrary to the mandate of Article 229 vesting High Court Administration in the Chief Justice and purports to encroach u11on his authority. (979-D-E] 1.2. Under A11icle 229 of the Constitution, Chief Justice of the High Court is the supreme authority in the matter of ap11ointments of the ltigh Court Officers and servants. This Article also confers rule-making power D on the Chief Justice for regulating the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court subject to the condition that if the rules relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, they have to have the approval of the Governor of the State. If the Legislature of the State has made any law, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate subject to the conditions made in that law. However, if the Legislature has not made any law referred E to in this Article or the Governor has not made any rule requiring the State Public Service Commission to be consulted, the rules made by the Chief Justice would operate independently and the Chief Justice will also not be um!er any obligation to consult the State Public Service Commission. [971-C-D-G; 971-G] F Pradyat Kumar Bose v. Hon 'ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, AIR (1956) SC 285 = [1955] 2 SCR 1331; M Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland & Ors., AIR (1971) SC 1850 = [1971] Supp. SCR 420; State of Assam v. Bhubhan Chandra Datta & Anr., AIR (1975) SC 889, [1975] 4 SCC 1 = (1975] 3 SCR 854; State ofAndhra Pradesh & Anr. v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi & Ors., AIR (1976) SC 123 = 11976] 1 SCR G 1008; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.