TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules known as Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (hereinafter called and referred to as the Rules ). 3. The Rules came into force on or about 1st October, 1952 Chapter 3 of the Rules refers to Administrative Business of the High Court. 4. The Rules of the High Court were amended by a Resolution of the Full Court of the High Court on 26.11.1966 and the relevant portion of the Minutes thereof are as under:- Minutes of the proceedings of the Full Court Meeting held on Saturday, the 26th November, 1966, at 11 A.M. in the Chamber of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. *** AGENDA I. Amendment in the High Court Rules relating to the Administrative Business of the Court. II. Any other matter which Hon'ble the Chief Justice may like to be discussed. DECISIONS: ITEM NO. II:- The amendments proposed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge in Chapter III of the High Court Rules relating to the administrative and executive business of the Court were considered. Resolved that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, and Articles 225, 227, 223, 234 and 235 of the Consti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparation of returns and statements; and (c) any other matter which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge may desire to be brought before it. 18. Consultation how made.-- The consultation with the Judges and the Administrative Committee, referred to in Rule 15 and 17 respectively shall be made either by circulating the papers connected with the matter among the Judges or the Administrative Committee as the case may be or by laying the matter before a meeting of the Judges or the Administrative Committee called by the Chief Justice. 19. Decision in case difference of opinion .-- All the matters referred to in Rules 15 and 17 shall be disposed of in accordance with the views of the majority and in case the Judges, including the Chief Justice are equally divided in accordance with the views of the Chief Justice. 20. Administrative business to be disposed of by the Chief Justice .--Subject to Rules 15 and 17, the administrative business referred to in Rule 14 shall be disposed of by the Chief Justice. 21 . Appointment of Administrative Judge and allocation of work.--( 1) The Chief Justice shall appoint a Judge to carry on the general administration of the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tee of two Hon'ble Judges of the said Court was constituted by the Full Court for the purpose of consideration of individual merit of the judicial officers of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) relating to appointment to selection scale. Pursuant to or in furtherance thereof a Committee of two Judges considered the same and suggested that last five years of ACRs to be considered in the merit criteria therefore. However, the Full Court by Resolution dated 5th October, 1990 took a decision to take into consideration three good ACRs out of five ACRs only for the said purpose. As regards grant of super time scale to Rajasthan Judicial Service the Full Court of the High Court by a Resolution dated 14.8.1997 adopted the criteria of five good ACRs out of seven ACRs for grant of supertime scale. 7. The Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, however, constituted a Committee consisting of two Judges of the said Court to consider examine and to make recommendations for formation of officiating promottee RHJS officers for their substantive appointment in their service and for promotion of RHJS officers in the ordinary scale to selection scale by an order dated 26th March, 1998. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1952 provides for prior consultation of the Judges of the High Court and as all Judges were not consulted in the matter subsequent approval thereof could not cure illegality. 11. The said writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:- (i) We direct the respondents to consider the cases of all the three petitioners afresh against the vacancies occasioned in 1998 and 1999 in view of the merit criterion evolved and approved by the Full Court in the year 1990 and 1994. If they are found eligible for promotion to selection scale of the RHJS, they can be accorded the selection scale by creating supernumerary posts in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. (ii) This decision shall not affect the order dated February 5, 2000 whereby selection scale of the RHJS was granted to twenty six officers. (iii) The fresh consideration as directed above is expected to be done as expeditiously as possible, in the meanwhile three posts in the selection scale of the RHJS shall be kept vacant. However, it was observed: It is however, made clear that though we have declared the entire exercise of the respondents in granting selection scale as illegal yet we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India were to be disposed of as provided therein. 15. The Rules have been made by the High Court. The High Court, therefore, can also amend the rules. It is not the case of the writ petitioners-First respondents herein that the High Court had no jurisdiction to evolve the criteria for grant of selection scale to the officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service or Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. It may be true that by reason of Resolution dated 5th October, 1990 the Full Court inter alia opined that for the purpose of grant of selection scale three good ACRs out of five ACRs were to be taken into consideration but the said decision of the Full Court was subject to amendment modification thereof. 16. A reading of the aforementioned rules clearly goes to show that the Chief Justice has the requisite jurisdiction to constitute a Committee and the report of the Committee upon consultation of all the Judges of the High Court in terms of Rule 15 shall become a decision of the Court. Rule 29(2) and Rule 32 as quoted (supra) also clearly show that even no irregularity which might have taken place in the procedure laid down in Chapter III shall not affect the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 21 of the Rules having been laid down in Chapter II which relates to the Administrative Business of the Court, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever even in the matter of control of the High Court in terms of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court had the jurisdiction to exercise the said power. 20. Once such a resolution authorising the Chief Justice to constitute a committee has been passed having regard to the decision of this Court in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil [1997]3SCR1131 , there cannot be doubt whatsoever that the exercise of power by the Chief Justice in that behalf was absolutely valid. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the Chief Justice could appoint the two-Judges committee only with the approval of the Full Court. 21. Exercise of power by the Chief Justice, however, indisputably must be made in terms of the rules. The questions raised in these appeals must, therefore, be considered from that angle. 22. The High Court in our opinion, therefore, clearly erred in arriving at the aforementioned finding that the constitution of the committee was illegal. 23. The subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e invalid. Rule 29 provides for a quorum. In the case of a meeting of the Judges of the court, the quorum will be complete if one-half or more of the Judges attend the same. Consultation with all the Judges would, thus, not mean that even if some of the Judges do not choose to make themselves available in a Full Court Meeting, consultation with all the Judges shall not be complete. 29. We may notice that even in the Full Court meeting held on 26th November, 1966 all the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court were not present. 30. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of considering the cases of concerned officers. It is not and cannot be the case or the contention of the writ petitions that even for the purpose of considering the case of the eligible judicial officers at the threshold, it was absolutely necessary to place the matter before the Full Court. The Acting Chief Justice constituted the Committee for a specific purpose. The Committee merely submitted its opinion which was subject to approval by the Full Court. Once the opinion of the matter is approved by the Full Court, in our opinion, it must be held that there had been a compliance of Rule 15 of the Rules. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e into arrears like court arrears. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the control will be better and more effectively exercised if a smaller committee of Judges has the authority of the court to consider the manifold matters falling within the purview of Article 235. Bearing in mind therefore the nature of the power which that article confers on the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is wrong to characterize as 'delegation' the process whereby the entire High Court authorises a Judge or some of the Judges of the Court to act on behalf of the whole Court. Such an authorization effectuates the purpose of Article 235 and indeed without it the control vested in the High Court over the subordinate courts will tend gradually to become lax and ineffective. Administrative functions are only a part, though an important part of the High Court's constitutional functions. Judicial functions ought to occupy and do in fact consume the best part of a Judge's time. For balancing these two-fold functions it is inevitable that the administrative duties should be left to be discharged by some on behalf of all the Judges. Judicial functions brook no such sharing of respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajeswaran, the decision and recommendation of the Review Committee was not placed before the Full Court Meeting. Nor is there any material to show that the same was circulated to the judges. In that sense, the recommendation of the Review Committee was not strictly legal. 36. Furthermore, the terminology 'consultation' used in Rule 15 having regard to purport and object thereof must be given its ordinary meaning. In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition, 1960, Volume 9, page 3) to 'consult' is defined as 'to discuss something together, to deliberate'. Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 16A, Ed. 1956, page 1242) also says that the word 'consult' is frequently defined as meaning to discuss something together, or to deliberate. By giving an opportunity to consultation or deliberation the purpose thereof is to enable the Judges to make their respective points of view known to the others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their view. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the Judges present in the meeting of the Full Court were supplied with all the requisite documents and had full opportunity to deliberate upon the Agenda in question. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solution. therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorized, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on December 17, 1953... 42. (See also Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan (1989) IILLJ161SC , Babu Verghese and Ors. v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors. [1999]1SCR1121 and Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board (1953) 1 All ER 1113). 43. In Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Narasingha Charan Mohanty and Ors. (supra) where upon the learned counsel has placed strong reliance this Court held: ...That apart, the Court is not entitled to assess the respective merit of the candidates for adjudging their suitability for being promoted and the only right the employee has is a right of consideration. The said right of consideration not having been infringed in the present case, the High Court was not justified in issuing the impugned direction for reconsideration of his case... 44. The said decision, therefore, mutilates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
