K.K. PARMAR AND ORS. versus H.C. OF GUJARAT TH. REGISTRAR & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 565 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

K.K. PARMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
H.C. OF GUJARAT TH. REGISTRAR & ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Staff) 
Rules, 1992-,Rule 47 prescribing procedure for promotion to post of Section 
Officer from Assistant on consideration of efficiency, proved merits determined 
on past performance, written and oral test-However, Government in one 
of its office orders prescribing principle of selectivity for appointment by 
promotion to post of Heads of Departments-High Court applying this order 
for post of Section officers-Validity of-Held-Government order ex facie 
applied to posts of Head of the Department, and had no application to 
promotion to the post of Section officers, who were not heads of department-
However, per se, no illegality was committed by High Court in allowing all 
eligible employees to be brought within the zone of consideration, and only 
because Registry of High Court applied that resolution, it would not render 
selection process invalid-For judging merit, past performance was a 
relevant factor, and manner of its determination specified in Rule 47(2) could 
not be ignored-No employee could claim those posts only on basis of their 
seniority. 
Judicial review by superior court-Exercise of-Held-Court exercising 
/ 
power of judicial review is not concerned whether a wrong provision of law 
has been taken recourse to-It is only concerned whether authority passing 
the order had requisite jurisdiction under the law to do so or not-If it is 
found that the impugned order is not ultra vires or illegal or without 
jurisdiction, the same would not be interfered with only because it at one 
point of time proceeded on a wrong premise-Jurisdictional question can 
always be permitted to be raised. 
Words and phrases-'Merit '-Jn context of Rule 47 of High Court of 
Gujarat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1992-
Discussed. 
The Appellants were working as Assistants in High Court. Their 
terms and conditions of service are governed by the High Court of 
565 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Gujarat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1992. 
Rule 47 thereof provided that for promotion to the post of Section 
Officer from Assistant the promotion will be effected strictly on 
consideration of efficiency and proved merits; merits was to be 
determined on the basis of the past performance and performance at 
the written and oral tests to be taken by the Selection Committee as may 
be appointed by the Chief Justice. However, an office order in the form 
of a 'resolution' was issued by Government of Gujarat which inter alia 
provided that the principal of selectivity has been accepted for the 
purpose of appointment by promotion to the post of Heads of 
Departments, and for that purpose a selection committee was also set 
up by a Government Resolution which had to classify officers within the 
zone of consideration as outstanding, very good, good and unfit for 
promotion; and Secretariat Departments were directed to strictly ensure 
that those instructions were followed while filling post by promotion on 
selection basis. 
For vacancies in post of Section Officer a written examination and 
viva voce was held and appellants appeared therein. Unsuccessful 
candidates challenged the result by filing writ petitions. High Court 
rejected their contentions. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (a) the High Court committed an illegality 
in allowing all the candidates to appear at the viva-voce test although 
the zone of consideration therefor as envisaged under the Government 
Resolution was confined to three times the number of vacancies (b) sub-
rule (2) of Rule 47 of the Rules was voilated as in terms inter alia, merit 
was to be determined on basis of past performance and no criteria was 
F fixed relating thereto. 
G 
Respondents contended that as the appellants were aware that no 
marks had been allotted in regard to the past performance but despite 
the same, they having taken part in the examination, were estopped 
from questioning the same. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I. I. A bare perusal of the purported Resolution adopted by 
the Government of Gujarat on 20th March, 1982 clearly shows that the 
H 
same was applicable only in relation to the Head of the Departments. 
K.K. PARMAR v. H.C. OF GUJARAT TH. REGISTRAR 
567 
A 

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