LexKAMALAMMA AND ORS. versus HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
-{
/
M. KAMALAMMA AND ORS.
v.
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 24, 1995
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
A
B
Constitutipn of India, 1950-Art. 229(2)--Power of Chief Justice of the
High Court to make rules for its officers and servants-Amendment in Rule
16(d) of the Kera/a High Court Service Rules, 197o-Rule not violative of Art. C
14 and 16 of the Constitution .
. The staff (non-law graduates) of the Kerala High Court made rep-
resentations to the Chief Justice of the High Court ventilating certain
grievances. The Chief Justice heard the representatives of the staff on D
24.03.1984 and on 14.06.84 issued a notification amending Rule 16(d) of
the High Court Service Rules, 1970. The amended rule envisaged that only
such non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who ha~
completed 20 years of service or attained 50 years of age and who had
capacity for bench work, which capacity had to be certified by a committee
consisting of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar E
(Judi.). The amendment had shut out further promotion of the non-law
graduates as court officers. The respondents (law graduates) assailed the
validity of Rule 16(d) of the High Service Rules, 1970 before the Kerala
High Court as. being violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The High Court struck down the Rule as being violative of Articles
14 and 16. The petitioners (non-law graduates) for whose benefit the
aforesaid amendment had been made contended before this Court that a
law degree as a qualification for appointment as court officer came to be
prescribed only in 1960 and in some High Courts of the country a law
degree was not a prescribed qualification for appointment as court of-
ficers, termed as Bench Clerks there. The respondents contended that the
incumbents must be law graduates for promotion to the post of court
officers.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
303
F
H
304.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 2 S.C.R.
A
HELD : The amended rule had taken care to see that only such
non-law graduates would be considered for promotion who had capacity
for bench work, which was required to be certified by a committee consist-
ing of the Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judi.).
This showed that the rule making authority had taken full precaution to
B see that only a person of tested capacity was promoted to the post of court
officer. Out of 40 posts of court officers not more than 8 were made
available to the non-law graduates and· that too to those who had com-
pleted 20 years of total service. This promotional avenue was opened for
those who were at the fag end of their service, as, in the alternative, age of
fifty years was required, to become eligible for the post. The amendment
C had shut out further promotion of non-law graduates promoted as court
officers. The amended rule is valid. (306-G-H, 307-A]
Mohd. SujatAli v. U.0.1., AIR (1974) SC 1031, distinguished.
T.R. Kothadaraman v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage, JT
D (1994) SC 657, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2951 of
1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.85 of the Kerala High Court
E in·O.P. No. 5242of1984-M.
P.P. Rao, K.M.K. Nair and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellants.
Seetaramiah, P.K. Manohar, Ms. Shanta Vasudevan and R. Sasiprab-
)--
(
F ha, (N.P.) for the Respondents.
~
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HANSARIA, J. Article 229(2) of the Constitution has provided that
the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be
such as· may be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of the
G Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the
Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose. The staff of the High Court
of Kerala made certain representations to the Chief Justice of that Court
ventilating various grievances. The representatives of the staff were heard
by the Chief Justice on 24th March, 1984 and after applying due mind to
H various aspects involved in the matter, which were recorded in the Minutes
'\~
_A,
/
'--<
M.KAMALAMMA v. CJ.H.C.OFKERALA(HANSARIA,J.)
305
which run to almost 12 pages, it was felt that a need for amendment of the A
Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 existed. A Notification was issued
accordingly on 14.6.1984, by which the existing provision in sub-rule (d) of
Rule 16 was substituted to read as belExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.