S.B. MATHUR AND OTHERS. versus HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT, AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 31-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
S.B. MATHUR AND OTHERS. 
v .. :1 
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT,: 
"AND OTHERS 
AUGUST 31, 1988 
·' 
. ' 
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.J 
Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and conditions of 
service) Rules, 1972-Delhi High Court Staff (SeniOrity) Rules 1971-
Superintendents of Delhi High Court challenging the treatment of posts 
of Superintendents, Court Masters or Readers and Private Secretaries to 
Judges as equal status posts, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion, and challenging joint seniority list of Superiniendents, Court 
Masters and PriV<•te Secretaries for purposes of promotion" to the post of 
As.m1a11t Registrars and claiming better rights of promotion. 
D 
· .. The Superintendents of the Delhi High Court by writ petition 
claimed better rights of promotion, objected to their being treated as on 
par with the Private Secretaries to Judges and Court Masters; and 
being included in a joint seniority list alongwith them, particularly as 
far as the promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Registrar was 
E 
concerned_ 
' 
The petitioners contended inter-alia that there was a violation of 
Article 14 of the Constitution In treating the posts of Superintendents, 
Court Masters or readers and Private Secretaries to Judges as equal · 
status p_osts; that the sources of recruitment to these posts were not 
identical and so also the qualifications required for appointments to 
F 
these posts; that the duties of the incumbents of these posts were diffe-
rent; that in treating these posts as equal status posts, unequals had 
been treated equally and the rule of ~quality had been violated. 
( 
Dismissing the petition, the Court, 
G 
HELD: \Vhere an employer h3s a large number or employees9 
;· __ performing diverse duties, he must enjoy some di.Scretion in treating 
different categories of his employees as holding equal status post~r 
equated posts, as questions of promotion or transfer of empIOyees inter 
se will necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of 
the organisation- [781C-D] 
H 
772 
S.B. MATHUR v. CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT 
773 
There is nothing mherently wrong in an employer treating certain 
posts as equated posts or equal status posts, provided that in doing so he 
exercises his discretion reasonably and does not violate the principles of 
equality enshrined inArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [781D-E] 
For treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it 
is not necessary that the holders of these posts must perform the identi-
cal functions or that the sources of recruitment to the posts must be the 
same, nor is it essential that the qualifications for appointments to the 
posts must be identical. But, there must not be such difference.in the 
pay-scales or qualifications of the incumbents of the posts or in their 
duties or responsibilities or regarding any other relevant factor that it 
would be unjust fo treat the posts alike and posts having substantially 
higher pay-scales or status in service or carrying substantially heavier 
responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior, cannot be 
equated with the posts carrying much lower pay-scales or substantially 
lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in 
service. [7lHE-G] 
The petitioners could not challenge the aforesaid posts being 
treated as equal status posts as that had been done in accordance 
with the Seniority Rules of 1971 the vires of which had not been 
challenged. [782B] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Neither the combined seniority list nor the treating of the said 
E 
posts as equal status posts could be said to be arbitrary in the absence of 
any material, particularly in view of the fact that the Chief Justice and 
the Judges of the High Court had taken the view that it was necessary in 
order to provide adequate promotional opportunities to the various 
sections of the employees. [784D] 
The challenge to the said posts being treated as equal status posts 
had come too late in 1970 to be entertained in a writ petition, after the 
seniority Rules of 1971 became effective. This challenge could be 
negatived on the ground of delay or latches apart from other consi-
derations. [784E-G] 
There was nothing unreasonable in the restriction that out of the 
total number of candidates who satisfied the eligibility requirement, the 
zone of consideration would be limited to a multiple of 3 to 5 times the 
number of v

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