http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMESH CHAND PALIWAL & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/02/1998

BENCH: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.SAGHIR AHMAD. J.      The Authority  which has  been  dispensing  justice  to others, is,  today before us seeking itself justice on being aggrieved by  the judgment  passed by  two of  its Judges on 28.9.93 in a Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 (Ramesh Chand Paliwal) challenging the promotion of respondent No. 2 (Sankal Chand  Mehta) on  the post  of Deputy  Register. Not only that  respondent No. 1 wanted the Chief Justice’s order dated 6.3.92  by which  Sankal   Chand Mehta was promoted to the post  of Deputy  Registrar to be quashed, he also prayed that the  order of  the Chief Justice dated 28.2.92 by which the earlier  establishment order  dated 11.5.90 was amended, be also quashed. 2.   The Chief  Justice, in  exercise of powers available to him under  Article 229  of the  Constitution, has made Rules known as  Rajasthan High  Court (Conditions  of  Service  of staff) Rules,  1953 which have been amended by him from time to time  by administrative orders. The promotion on the post in question is regulated by these Rules. 3.   The vacancy,  on which  Sankal Chand Mehta was promoted as Deputy  Register,  had  occurred  on  the  retirement  of Shambhu Chand  Mehta on  31st of  January, 1992. The post of Deputy  Registrar,   therefore,  became  vacant  on  1st  of February, 1992.  It has been held that this vacancy could be filled up  only   in accordance  with the  rules which  were prevalent on  that date  and since  respondent No.2 had been promoted to  that post  in  accordance  with  the  rules  as amended on  28.2.92, and,  not in  accordance with the rules prevalent on 1.2.92, the said promotion was bad. The Hon’ble Judges proceeded  to say  that ordinarily  they  would  have quashed the  appointment of  respondent No.2  on the post of Deputy Registrar  but since  he was  to retire  on  30th  of September, 1993,  they did  not do  so but directed that the vacancy occurring  on 1.10.93  shall  be  treated  to  be  a vacancy available  on 1.2.92  shall that  vacancy  would  be filled up  on accordance  with the  rules  set  out  in  the administrative  order   dated  11.5.90  by  considering  the eligible  officers   belonging  to   the  cadre  of  Private Secretaries  only.   It  was   further  directed   that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

appointment made  on the  post of  Deputy Registrar would be deemed to  have been made w.e.f. 6.3.92 when respondent No.2 was illegally  promoted to  that post.  The Judges  did  not decide the  question of  validity of  the amendments made by the Chief Justice in the rules by order dated 28.2.92. 4.   We are informed that so far as appointment to that post of Deputy  Registrar is concerned, the directions set out in the impugned  judgment have since been complied with and the promotion on  the post  of Deputy Registrar has been made in accordance with those directions. In this appeal, therefore, we are not now concerned with the promotion made on the post of Deputy  Registrar nor  are we concerned with the validity of  amendments   introduced  in  the  Rajasthan  High  Court (Conditions of  Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 by order dated 28.2.92. 5.   During the  course of  the judgment, the learned Judges digressed from  the main  course and  wrote out two pages as under;-           "An argument  has been  raised      on behalf  of the  respondent  No.2      that   all   the   posts   on   the      establishment of the High Court can      be manned by the officers belonging      to be  establishment  of  the  High      Court, but  the officers  belonging      to the  establishment of  the  High      Court are not promoted to any posts      above the post of the Dy. Registrar      and even two posts of Dy. Registers      designated as Dy. Registrar (Judl.)      and one  post of  Principle Private      Secretary  to   the  Hon’ble  Chief      Justice  are  being  filled  in  by      bringing  the   officers   of   the      Rajasthan Judicial  Service  and/or      of Rajasthan  High Judicial Service      on deputation, in spite of the fact      that many  courts are  lying vacant      in the  various  districts  of  the      State. It  has been  submitted that      this results  is not  only  causing      frustration amongst  the  officials      belonging to  the establishment  of      the High  Court but  also  deprives      the litigation  public of the State      of their  services for  decision of      their cases.           We feel that this point raised      by  the   respondent  No.2   in  an      additional   affidavit   filed   on      record,  is   not  required  to  be      decided for  the decision  of  this      writ petition  and, even otherwise,      in absence  of sufficient material,      we should not go into it.           We are,  however, of  the view      that it  requires examination as to      whether the  abovesaid posts or any      of them  are such  which cannot  be      manned by the officers belonging to      the establishment of the High Court      and are required to be filled in by      bringing the  judicial officers  on      deputation to  the  High  Court  by      depriving the  litigating public of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

    their    judicial    service    and      experience, we,  therefore,  direct      the Registrar of the respondent No.      1 to  prepare a  detailed report in      this respect  as soon  as  possible      and put  it up  before the  Hon’ble      Chief  Justice   for  being  placed      before   the    Full   Court    for      consideration and  decision  as  to      whether the  officers belonging  to      the  judicial  services  should  be      spared to  man such  posts  in  the      High  Court  especially  when  many      courts in various districts of this      State remain vacant." 6.   These passages  show that  there were  certain posts in the establishment of the High Court on which officers of the Rajasthan Higher  Judicial Service  were being  appointed on deputation which  was objected  to by  certain staff  of the High Court  on the  ground that  they were  competent to man those posts  and, therefore, officers belonging to Rajasthan Judicial Service  or Higher  Judicial Service  should not be inducted on  those posts  specially when  their  appointment causes dislocation  of judicial  work in the District Courts and more  specially as the High Court staff does not get any promotion beyond  the post  of Deputy Registrar. The learned Judges did  not decide  this question  as they  were of  the opinion that  this question  was not  required to be decided for the  effective disposal  of the  Writ Petition  filed by respondent No.  1. They  also through  that it  would not be proper for  them to  go into  that  question  as  sufficient material was  not available  on record.  They, nevertheless, issued the  direction to  the Registrar  to prepare a report whether the  posts on  which officers belonging to Rajasthan Judicial Service were being appointed could be manned by the High Court  staff  and  whether  the  appointment  of  those officers on  deputation causes  dislocation of judicial work in the  District Courts as the litigating public is deprived of their  services and  the courts  presided  over  by  them become,  and  remain,  vacant  for  long.  This  report  was directed to  be placed  before the  Full Court  so that  the matter could be discussed and a decision taken thereon. 7.   Learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of  the appellant has contended  that the  Judges of  the Rajasthan High Court were not  competent  while  deciding  the  main  controversy raised in  the petition, to slide to this side of the matter and to  issue the  impugned direction particularly when such direction is  contrary to  the provisions  of Article 229 of the Constitution  of India  and purports  to  undermine  the authority of the Chief Justice. 8.   In order  to  appreciate  and  understand  the  status, powers and  authority of  the  Chief  Justice  as  also  his constitutional position  qua other Judges of the High Court, it would be necessary to delve into archives. 9.   The British Government established the Supreme Court of Calcutta by  a Charter  issued in  1774. Clause  10  of  the Charter, inter alia,      "authorised and empowered from time      to time,  as occasion  may require,      to appoint  so many and such clerks      and other  ministerial officers  as      shall be  found necessary  for  the      administration of justice." 10.  The Supreme  Court of Calcutta was replaced by the High Courts established  under the High Courts Act, 1861. Section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

9 of the Act provided as under:-           "Each of the High Courts to be      established  under  the  Act  shall      have and  exercise all jurisdiction      and  every   power  and   authority      whatsoever in  any manner vested in      any of  the courts  abolished under      the                           Act." 11.  Letters Patent  was granted  to the Calcutta High Court in 1865.  Clauses 4  and 8 of the Letters Patent, as amended in 1919, provided as under:-           "4   We do  hereby appoint and      ordain,  that   every   clerk   and      ministerial  officer  of  the  High      Court of Judicature at Fort William      in Bengal  appointed by  virtue  of      the  said  Letters  Patent  of  the      Fourteenth  of  May,  One  thousand      eight hundred  and sixty-two, shall      continue  to  hold  and  enjoy  his      office  and   employment  with  the      salary thereunto  annexed, until he      be removed  from  such  office  and      employment; and he shall be subject      to  the   like  power  of  removal,      regulations, and  provisions as  if      he  were  appointed  by  virtue  of      these letters Patent.           "8. We do hereby authorize and      empower the  Chief Justice  of  the      said High  Court of  Judicature  at      Fort William in Bengal from time to      time, as  occasion may require, and      subject   to    any    rules    and      restrictions    which     may    be      prescribed by  the Governor-General      in Council,  to appoint so many and      such clerks  and other  ministerial      officers   as    shall   be   found      necessary for the administration of      justice, and  due execution  of all      the powers  and authorities granted      and  committed  to  the  said  High      Court by  these Our  Letters Patent      and it  is  Our  further  will  and      pleasure and  We do hereby, for us,      Our  heirs   and  successors  give,      grant, direct and appoint, that all      and every  the officers  and clerks      to be  appointed as aforesaid shall      have and  receive respectively such      reasonable salaries  as  the  Chief      Justice shall,  from time  to  time      appoint for  each shall,  from time      to time appoint for each office and      place  respectively,   and  as  the      Governor-General in  Council  shall      approve                    of....." 12.  These Clause,  thus,  gave  power  of  appointment  and removal of  the staff to the Chief Justice. The power was to be exercised  subject to  such rules and restrictions as may be made by the Governor-General in Council. 13.  When Government  of India  Act, 1915  was enacted,  the above position was continued by virtue of Section 106 of the Act which, inter alia, provided as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

         "The       several        High      Court.......have  all  such  powers      and authority  over or  in relation      to the  administration of  justice,      including  the   power  to  appoint      clerks   and    other   ministerial      officers  of   the  court,  as  are      vested   in    them   by    letters      patent...... 14.  This position was not altered even by the Government of India Act,  1935. It  may be  mentioned that  Section 241 of this Act  specified the  various authorities  who could make appointments of  persons holding civil posts under the Crown in India  and frame  rules relating  to their  conditions of service but Section 242(4) specifically provided as under:-           "(4)  In  its  application  to      appointments  to,  and  to  persons      serving on,  the staff  attached to      the  Federal  Court  or  the  staff      attached to  a High Court, the last      preceding section shall have effect      as if,  in the  case of the Federal      Court, for  any  reference  to  the      Governor-General in  paragraph  (a)      of sub-section  (1),  in  paragraph      (a) of sub-section  (2) and in sub-      section (5)  there were substituted      a reference to the Chief justice of      India and  as if,  in the case of a      High Court,  for any  reference  to      the Governor  in paragraph  (b)  of      sub-section (2)  and in sub-section      (5)  there   were   substituted   a      reference to  the Chief  Justice of      the court :           Provided that -           (a) the  Governor may  in  his      discretion  require  that  in  such      cases as  he may  in his discretion      direct  no   person   not   already      attached  to  the  court  shall  be      appointed to  any office  connected      with   the    Court   save    after      consultation  with  the  Provincial      Public Service Commission ;           (b) rules  made under the said      sub-section (2)  by a Chief Justice      shall, so  far as  they  relate  to      salaries,  allowances,   leave   or      pensions, require  the approval  of      the  Governor-General  or,  as  the      case may be, the Governor." 15.  Thus,  Chief   Justice  continued  to  be  the  highest authority so far as High Court staff was concerned. 16.  When Constitution  came into  existence, the powers and status of  the Chief  Justice, as  available under  both the Acts,  namely,   Government  of   India  Acts   1915,   were maintained. 17.  Chapter V  of the  Constitution relates  to  "the  High Courts in  the States".  Under  the  constitutional  scheme, there has  to be  a High  Court for each State (see: Article 214). Article  216 provides  that  every  High  Court  shall consist of  a Chief  Justice and such other Judges as may be appointed by  the President  from time  to time. Article 223 provides that  when the  office of  Chief Justice  of a High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

Court is  vacant or  any Chief Justice, by reason of absence or otherwise, is unable to perform the duties of his office, such duty shall be performed by such one or the other Judges of the  court as  the President  may  appoint.  Article  229 provides as under:-      "229. Officers and servants and the      expenses  of  High  Courts.  -  (1)      Appointments   of    officers   and      servants of  a High  Court shall be      made by  the Chief  Justice of  the      Court  or   such  other   Judge  or      officer of  the  court  as  he  may      direct:           Provided that  the Governor of      the State  may be rule require that      in such  cases as  may be specified      in the  rule no  person not already      attached  to  the  court  shall  be      appointed to  any office  connected      with   the    court   save    after      consultation with  the State Public      Service Commission.           (2) Subject  to the provisions      of any  law made by the Legislature      of  the   State,   the   conditions      service of officers and servants of      a High  Court shall  be such as may      be prescribed  by rules made by the      Chief Justice  of the  Court or  by      some other  Judge or officer of the      court  authorised   by  the   Chief      Justice  to   make  rules  for  the      purpose :           Provided that  the rules  made      under this  clause shall, so far as      they    relate     to     salaries,      allowances.  leave   or   pensions,      require   the   approval   of   the      Governor of the State.           (3)     The     administrative      expenses of a High Court, including      all   salaries,    allowances   and      pensions payable  to or  in respect      of the officers and servants of the      court, shall  be charged  upon  the      Consolidated Fund of the State, and      any fees  or other  moneys taken by      the court  shall  form part of that      Fund." 18.  This Article  makes Chief Justice of the High Court the supreme authority  in the matter of appointments of the High Court officers and servants. This Article also confers rule- making  power  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, allowance,  leave or  pensions, they  have to have the  approval   of  the   Governor  of  the  State.  If  the Legislature of  the State  has made any laws, the rules made the Chief  Justice would  operate subject  to the conditions made in that law. 19.  The rule-making  power of  the Chief Justice is subject to three restrictions:-      (i)  If   the   rules   relate   to           salaries, allowances, leave or           pensions,   they    have    to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

         approved by  the  Governor  of           the State.      (ii)  If  the  Legislature  of  the           State has  made any  law,  the           rules  made   by   the   Chief           Justice will  operate  subject           to that law.      (iii) If  the Governor of the State           has, by rule, provided that no           person not already attached to           the Court,  shall be appointed           to any  office  connected with           the    Court     save    after           consultation  with  the  State           Public Service Commission, the           Chief  Justice   while  making           appointment on such post shall           first consult the State Public           Service Commission. 20.  It is  obvious that if the Legislature has not made any law referred to in this Article or the Governor has not made any rule requiting 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 under any  obligation   is  consult   the  State   Public  Service Commission. 21.  Under Article  229, power  of appointment  can also  be exercised by such other Judge of officer of the court as may be directed   by  the Chief Justice. So also the rule-making power can be exercised by some other Judge or officer of the court provided  he is authorised in that behalf by the Chief Justice. 22.  The power  available to  the Chief  Justice of the High Court, under  Article 229, is akin to the power of the Chief Justice of  India under  Article 146  of  the  Constitution, which is quoted below:-           "146.  Officers  and  servants      and the  expenses  of  the  Supreme      Court  .-   (1)   Appointments   of      officers  and   servants   of   the      Supreme Court  shall be made by the      Chief  Justice  of  India  or  such      other Judge or Officer of the court      as he may direct:           Provided  that  the  President      may by  rule require  that in  such      cases as  may be  specified in  the      rule,   no   person   not   already      attached  to  the  court  shall  be      appointed to  any office  connected      with   the    court,   save   after      consultation with  the Union Public      Service Commission.           (2) Subject  to the provisions      of any  law made by Parliament, the      conditions of  service of  officers      and servants  of the  Supreme Court      shall be  such as may be prescribed      by rules  made by the Chief Justice      of India  or by some other Judge or      officer of  the court authorised by      the Chief  Justice of India to make      rules for the purpose :           Provided that  the rules  made      under this  clause shall, so far as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

    they    relate     to     salaries,      allowances,  leave   or   pensions,      require   the   approval   of   the      President.           (3)     The     administrative      expensed  of   the  Supreme  Court,      including all  salaries, allowances      and  pensions   payable  to  or  in      respect   of   the   officers   and      servants of  the  court,  shall  be      charged upon  the Consolidated Fund      of India,  and any  fees  or  other      money taken by the court shall form      part of that Fund." 23.  Just as Chief Justice of India is the supreme authority in the  matter of  Supreme Court Establishment including its office staff  and officers, so also the Chief Justice of the High Court  is the  sole authority  in these  matters and no other   Judge   or   officer   can   legally   usurp   those administrative functions of power. 24.  The power  of appoint an officer or servant of the High Court also  includes the  power to  dismiss as  was held  in Pradyat Kumar  Bose vs.  Hon’ble Chief  Justice of  Calcutta High Court. AIR 1956 Sc 385 = 1955 (2) SCR 1331. It was also held in  that case  that it  was not necessary for the Chief Justice to  consult  the  State  Public  Service  Commission before dismissing  the Registrar of the original side of the High Court.  In M. Gurumoorthy vs. Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland  & Ors.,  AIR 1971 SC 1850 = 1971 Supp SCR 420, it was  held that  in the  matter of appointment of the High Court officers  and  servants,  the  Chief  Justice  is  the supreme authority  and there  can be  no interference by the executive except  to the limited extent indicate din Article 229. If, however, the matter relates to pay fixation, it has to have  the approval  of the  Governor of  the State. (See: State of  Assam vs. Bhubhan Chandra Datta & Anr. AIR 1975 SC 889, (1975) 4 SCC 1 = 1975 (3) SCR 854) 25.  Since, under  the Constitution,  Chief Justice has also the power to make rules regulating the conditions of service of the  officers and  servants of  the  High  Court,  it  is obvious that  he can  also prescribe  the  scale  of  salary payable for  a particular  post. This would also include the power to  revise the  scale of  pay. Since such a rule would involve finance,  it has  been provided  in the Constitution that it  will require the approval of the Governor which, in other words, means the State Government. This Court in State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi & Ors. AIR 1976  Sc 123 = 1976 (1) SCR 1008, had expressed the hope that "one should accept in the fitness of things and in view of the  spirit of  Article 229 that the approval, ordinarily and generally,  would be  accorded." This  was reiterated by this Court  in Supreme  Court Employees  Welfare Association vs. Union  of India,  AIR 1990  SC 334  = 1989 (3) SCR 488 = (1989) 4  SCC 187. We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the  Chief Justice,  in  the  interest  of  High  Court administration, has  taken a  progressive step  specially to ameliorate the  service conditions of the officers and staff working under  him, the  State Government would hardly raise any objection  to the  sanction  of  creation  of  posts  or fixation  of   salary  payable   for  that   post   or   the recommendation for  revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of  the equivalent  post  in  the  Government  has  been revised. 26.  The status,  functions and  duties of the Chief Justice qua other  Judges of the High Court was considered by a Full

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

Bench of  the Allahabad  High Court  of which  one of us (S. Saghir Ahmad.  J.) was  a member, in Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs. Acting  Chief Justice  & Ors.  (1996)  Allahabad  Weekly Cases 644, in which it was, inter alia, observed as under:-      "The Chief Justice may constitute a      Bench of  two  or  more  Judges  to      decide a  case or  any question  of      law formulated by a Bench hearing a      case.  In   the  latter   even  the      decision  of   such  Bench  of  the      question  so  formulated  shall  be      returned to  the Bench  hearing the      case and  that Bench  shall  follow      that decision  on such question and      dispose of  the case after deciding      the remaining  questions,  if  any,      arising therein." 27.  It was further observed:-      "Under Rule  6 of  Chapter V of the      Rules of  Court,  it  can  well  be      brought to  the notice of the Chief      Justice through  an application  or      even otherwise  that  there  was  a      case which  is required to be heard      by a  larger Bench on account of an      important  question  of  law  being      involved in  the case or because of      the conflicting  decisions  on  the      point in issue in that case. If the      Chief Justice  takes congnizance of      an  application   laid  before  him      under Rule  6 of  Chapter V  of the      Rules of  Court and  constitutes  a      Bench of  two  or  more  Judges  to      decide the  case, he cannot be said      to have  acted in  violation of any      statutory provisions." 28   The Full Bench also observed:-      "In View  of the above, it is clear      that the  Chief  Justice  enjoys  a      special  status   not  only   under      Constitution but  also under  Rules      of Court,  1952 made in exercise of      powers conferred  by Article 225 of      the Constitution. The Chief Justice      alone can  determining jurisdiction      of various  Judges of the Court. He      alone cane  assign work  to a Judge      sitting alone  and  to  the  Judges      sitting in  Division  Bench  or  to      Judges sitting  in Full  Bench.  He      alone  has   the  jurisdiction   to      decide which  case will be heard by      a Judge sitting alone or which case      will  be   heard  by  two  or  more      Judges.      The  conferment   of   this   power      exclusively on the Chief Justice is      necessary so  that  various  Courts      comprising of  the  Judges  sitting      alone or  in Division  Bench  etc.,      work in  a co-ordinated  manner and      the Jurisdiction  of one  court  is      not over  lapped by other Court. If      the  Judges  were  free  to  choose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

    their jurisdiction  or  any  choice      was given  to them  to do  whatever      case they  may  like  to  hear  and      decide, the  machinery of the Court      would  collapse  and  the  judicial      functioning  of   the  Court  would      cease  by  generating  of  internal      strife on  account of hankering for      a  particular   jurisdiction  or  a      particular case.  The  nucleus  for      proper functioning  of the Court is      the    "self"     and    "judicial"      discipline  of   judges  which   is      sought to  be achieved  by Rules of      Court by  placing in  the hands  of      the Chief  Justice  full  authority      and power to distribute work to the      Judges  and   to   regulate   their      jurisdiction and sittings." 29.  This decision  has been approved by this Court in State of Rajasthan  vs. Prakash Chand, JT 1997 (9) SC 492 = (1998) 1 SCC  1, which  incidentally is  a case  originating in the Rajasthan High  Court from where this appeal has come before us. 30.  Apart from the fact that the impugned directions to the Registrar are  contrary to  Article 229,  they also have the effect of  negativing the impact of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of  Service of  Staff) Rules,  1953 made  by the Chief Justice in exercise of power conferred by Article 229. Rule 2 specifies the strength of staff. It provides that the staff shall  consist of  the posts  specified in  the second column of  Schedule I attached to the rules. It also provide that the  Chief  Justice  may,  from  time  to  time,  leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any vacant post. Tue rules also provide that  the Chief  Justice may  increase or reduce the strength of  staff. Method of recruitment has been specified in Rule 2A as under:-      "2A. Method  of  recruitment:-  (1)      Recruitment to  a post  or category      of posts  specified in  the  second      column of  Schedule I shall be made      by one  or more  of  the  following      methods, namely, -           (a) by direct recruitment, or           (b) by promotion of a person                already employed in the                High Court, or           (c) by transfer from                subordinate courts or                offices of the                State Government.           Provided   that    the   Chief      Justice or  subject  to any general      or  special   order  of  the  Chief      Justice, the  Registrar  may  order      transfer  of   any  member  of  the      ministerial  or   class  IV   staff      serving on the establishment of the      High Court to any Court subordinate      to the High Court and vise versa on      such terms and conditions as may be      deemed proper.           (2)  The  Chief  justice  may,      from time  to time,  by general  or      special order:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

         (a) specify  the  method    by      which  recruitment  to  a  post  or      category of posts shall be made,           (b) determine  the  proportion      of vacancies  to be  filled by each      method of in case of recruitment by      more than one method, and           (c)  specify   the  manner  in      which  such  recruitment  shall  be      made  in   the   case   of   direct      recruitment.      (3)  Recruitment  to  the  post  of      Court Officer  shall be  made & (by      selection from  the  staff  or)  by      direct  recruitment  in  accordance      with  such   method   as   may   be      prescribed by the Chief Justice." 31.  This rule  contemplates that the Chief Justice may fill certain posts  by appointing  officers on transfer from sub- ordinate courts.  Schedule I indicated that against the post of Registrar,  Registrar (Vigilance),  Additional Registrar, Additional  Registrar   (Vigilance),  Additional   Registrar (Writs), Officer  on Special Duty (Rules). Principal Private Secretary to  Hon’ble Chief  Justice  and  Deputy  Registrar (Judicial), the  words "R.H.J.S.  Cadre" have been mentioned which means   that  officers belonging  to Rajasthan  Higher Judicial Service  alone can be appointed on these posts. The rules made under Article 229 of the Constitution have, thus, specified the  posts on  which  officers  of  the  Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service or Rajasthan Judicial Service are to be appointed.  The  method  of  recruitment  has  also  been indicated. All appointments on these posts are to be made by the Chief  Justice. These  rules can  be altered, amended or rescinded only  by the Chief Justice who alone has the rule- making power. 32.  If  the   impugned  directions  are  analysed  in  this background, it  will be  seen that  the real  purport of the directions is  to  over-ride  not  only  the  constitutional provisions contained  in Article 229 but also the rules made in exercise  of powers  available to the Chief Justice under that Article.  Even if  the Registrar,  in compliance of the impugned direction,  is to  report that  the posts  on which officers  of   the  Rajasthan  Higher  Judicial  Service  or Rajasthan Judicial  Service are appointed on Deputation, can well be  managed by the High Court staff itself or that when the officers  are brought  from the  District Courts  to the High Court  for appointment  on the aforesaid posts, some of the sub-ordinate  courts  become  vacant  as  the  Presiding Officers having  been sent  on deputation  to High Court are not available  to hear and dispose of cases pending in those courts and  even if  such report  is placed  before the Full Court, can  the Full  Court give  a direction  to the  Chief Justice not  to fill  up those posts by bringing Officers on deputation but  to fill  up those  posts by  promotion  from amongst the  High Court  staff? The  answer is   an emphatic "No,  it  cannot  be  done".  A  Judge  of  the  High  Court individually or  all the  Judges sitting collectively, as in the Full  Court,  cannot  either  alter  the  constitutional provisions or the rules made by the Chief Justice. They have no jurisdiction even to suggest any constitutional amendment or amendment  in the rules made by the Chief Justice nor can they create any avenue of promotion for the High Court staff so as  to be  appointed on  posts meant  for  Officers  from Rajasthan Higher  Judicial  Service  or  Rajasthan  Judicial Service. The  Chief Justice has been vested with wide powers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

to run the High Court Administration independently so as not to brook  any interference  from any  quarter, not even from his  Brother   Judges  who,   however,  can  scrutinise  his administrative action or order on the judicial side like the action of  any other  authority. It should not be lost sight that Registrars,  under Rules  of various  High Courts, have also to perform some limited judicial functions which cannot be done  by an  officer other than a Judicial Officer in the High Court establishment. 33.  There is  yet another  aspect. If  under the High Court Rules, it  has been  provided that  certain posts  shall  be manned by  the officers  of the Rajasthan Judicial or Higher Judicial Service  who would  be appointed  on those posts on deputation, the  other Judges  of the High Court cannot, nor can  the   employees  of   the  court   raise,  possibly  or legitimately, any  grievance.  Since  power  of  appointment which vests  absolutely  in  the  Chief  Justice  cannot  be exercised by  any other Judge of the High Court, the latter, namely, other  Judge or  Judges, cannot  exercise that power even indirectly  as has  been attempted  to be  done in  the instant case.  By directing  the Registrar  of the  court to submit a report whether the posts on which officers from the Rajasthan Judicial  Service are  appointed on deputation can be manned by the High Court staff and further directing such report  to   be  placed   before  the  Full  Court  for  the consideration of  other Judges  on the  administrative side, the Hon’ble Judges have attempted to indirectly exercise the power of  appointment on  certain posts  in the  High  Court establishment on  which appointment  can be made only by the Chief Justice. The learned Judges who disposed of the matter were themselves  of the  opinion that  this question was not required to  be decided  for the  effective decision  of the Writ Petition pending before them. As such, they should have stopped there  and should  not have  proceeded to  give  the impugned direction  to  the  Registrar  of  the  High  Court particularly as  it is  difficult to  believe that the Cadre strength of  Rajasthan Judicial  Service or  Higher Judicial Service is  so weak  or depleted  that no  substitute can be provided for  eight officers (maximum under Rules) placed on deputation in the High Court. 34.  Learned made a feeble attempt to invoke Article 235 and contended  the  "High  Court"  does  not  mean  mere  "Chief Justice" but   "all  Judges  collectively"  and,  therefore, impugned directions  could be validly issued. We reject this contentions for reasons set out hereinbelow. 35.  Chapter VI  deals with sub-ordinate courts. Article 233 provides for  the appointment of District Judges. A District Judge is  to be  appointed by  the Governor  of the State in consultation with  the High Court. Article 234 provides that appointment of  persons, other  than District Judges, to the Judicial Service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State  in accordance  with the rules made by him in that behalf   after consultation  with the  State Public  Service Commission and  the High  Court.  Article  235  provides  as under:-      "235.  Control   over   subordinate      courts. - The control over district      courts   and   courts   subordinate      thereto including  the posting  and      promotion  of,  and  the  grant  of      leave to,  persons belonging to the      judicial service  of  a  State  and      holding any  post inferior  to  the      post of district shall be vested in      the High Court, but nothing in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

    article  shall   be  construed   as      taking away  from any  such  person      any right  of appeal  which he  may      have under  the law  regulating the      conditions of  his  service  or  as      authorising the  High Court to deal      with   him    otherwise   than   in      accordance with  the conditions  of      his service  prescribed under  such      law." 36.  This Article  shows that the High Court has to exercise its administrative,  judicial and  disciplinary control over the members  of the  Judicial Service of the State. The word "control", referred  to  in  this  Article,  is  used  in  a comprehensive sense  to include  general superintendence  of the working of the sub-ordinate courts, disciplinary control over the  Presiding Officers  of the sub-ordinate courts and to recommend  the imposition  of  punishment  of  dismissal, removal and  reduction in  rank  or  compulsory  retirement. "Control" would  also include  suspension of a manner of the Judicial Service  for purposes  of  holding  a  disciplinary enquiry, transfer,  confirmation and  promotion. (See: State of Haryana  vs. Inder Prakash Anand, AIR 1976 Sc 1841 = 1976 (Supp.) SCR  603 = (1976) 2 SCC 977; State of U.P. vs. Batuk Deo Pati  Tripathi, (1978) 2 SCC 102 = 1978 (3) SCR 131). In State of Gujarat vs. Ramesh Chandra Mashruwala, AIR  1977 SC 1619 = 1977 (2)  SCr 710 = (1977) 2 SCC 12, it was held that the "control"  in Article  235 means  exclusive and not dual control. (See  also: Chief  Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. L.V.A.  Dikshitulu. AIR  1979 SC 193 = 1979 (1) SCR 26 = (1979) 2  SCC 34;  State of  West Bengal  vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, AIR  1966 SC 447 = 1966 (1) SCR  771). 37.  In Tejpal  Singh (Dead)  Lrs. vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1986  SC 1814  = 1986  (3) SCR 428 = (1986) 3 SCC 604 as also in G.S. Nagmoti  vs. State of Mysore (1969) 3 SCC 325 = 1970 SLR 911, it was held that the "control", referred to in Article 235, vests in the High Court and not in any Judge or Judges or any Committee thereof. In a subsequent decision in Registrar, High  Court of  Madras vs. R. Rajiah. AIR 1988 SC 1388 =  1988 Supp. (1) SCR 332 = (1988) SCC 211, it was held that there is no bar to have an enquiry made by  a Committee of several  Judges against  a  member  of  the  sub-ordinate judiciary provided the report of the Committee is circulated to all  the Judges and the ultimate decision is taken in the meeting of the Full Court. 38.  What is, therefore, of significance is that although in Article 235, the word "High Court" has been used, in Article 229,  the   word  "Chief   Justice"  has   been  used.   The Constitution,  therefore,   treats  them   as  two  separate entities in  as much  as "control  over Sub-ordinate Courts" vests in the High Court, but High Court administration vests in the Chief Justice. 39.The impugned  direction whether  the posts  in  the  High Court on  which Officers  on deputation are appointed can be managed by  the High Court staff is patently contrary to the mandate of  Article 229 vesting High Court Administration in the  Chief   Justice  and  purports  to  encroach  upon  his authority. 40.  As pointed  out above, under the constitutional scheme, Chief Justice is the supreme authority and the other Judges, so far   as  officers and  servants of  the High  Court  are concerned, have  no role to play on the administrative side. Some Judges, undoubtedly, will become Chief Justice in their own turn  one day, but it is imperative under constitutional discipline that  they work  in tranquility. Judges have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

described as  "hermits". They  have to  live and behave like "hermits" who  have no  desire or aspiration, having shed it through penance.  Their mission  is to  supply light and not heat. This  is necessary  so that their latent desire to run the High  Court administration  may not support before time, at least, in some cases. 41.  For the  reasons stated  above, this appeal is allowed. The judgment  dated  28.09.93  passed  by  the  two  learned Judges, in  so far  as it  relates to  the direction  to the Registrar, set  out in  the earlier part of the judgment, is set aside.  The judgment  in all  other respects  is upheld. There will be no order as to costs.