Case: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh &amp; Another

2. The High Court of Rajasthan in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1949 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in that behalf made 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 said 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 asof the proceedings of the Full Court Meeting held on Saturday, the 26th November, 1966, at 11 A.M. in Chamber of the Honble the Chief Justice.***AGENDAI. Amendment in the High Court Rules relating to the Administrative Business of the Court.II. Any other matter which Honble the Chief Justice may like to be discussed.DECISIONS:ITEM NO. II: -The amendments proposed by the Honble 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 and 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling the Court in that behalf, the following changes and amendments in Chapter III of the High Court Rules relating to the administrative and executive business of the Court beThe words "Executive and" occurring in the heading of Chapter III shall be omitted:2. For rules 14 to 22 the following rules shall be substituted:""14. Administrative business relating to control over subordinate courts and to superintendence over courts andadministrative business of the Court relating to the control over subordinate courts vested in the Court under Article 235 of the Constitution or otherwise and to the superintendence over the courts and tribunals vested in the Court under Article 227 of the the Constitution or otherwise shall be disposed of as provided hereinafter.15. Matters on which all Judges shall be consulted. - On the following matters all the Judges of the Court shall be consulted, namely:"(c) proposals as to changes in or the issue of new rules for the guidance of subordinateappointment, promotion and seniority of Judicial offices;(e) withholding of promotion, supersession or reduction of Judicial Officers;(f) removal or dismissal of any Judicial Officer;(g) compulsory, retirement of Judicial Officers otherwise than by way of punishment;(h) important questions of policy or those affecting the powers and status of the Court laid before the Court by the Chief Justice or any other Judge;(l) any matter which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Committee, as constituted under Rule 16, may consider fit to be laid before them for consideration.Administrative Committee - (1) A Committee of Judges shall be formed composed of the Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge and such other Judge or Judges as the Chief Justice may, from time to time, appoint. This Committee shall be called the AdministrativeSubject to these Rules, the Administrative Committee shall act for the Court in its administrative business in respect of the matters enumerated in rule 17.17. Matters on which the Administrative Committee shall be consulted. The Administrative Committee shall be consulted on the following mattes,the issue of general letters to subordinate courts;(b) the issue of directions regarding the preparation 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 howThe consultation with the Judges and the Administrative Committee, referred to in Rules 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 of difference of opinion - All the matters referred to in Rules 15 and 17 shall be disposed of in accordance with the views of 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 administrative of the Court. Such Judge shall be called the Administrative Judge and shall dispose of the administrative business in accordance with rule 22.(2) The Chief Justice may also, by a general or special order, allocate specified business for disposal to any other Judge or a Committee of Judges, and such Judge or Committee of Judges shall dispose of the same, subject to any special directions of the Chief Justice.Papers to be submitted to the Chief Justice after circulation - After any papers have been circulated for opinion, they shall be submitted again to the Chief Justice, who shall examine the matter and issue orders in accordance with Rule 19".Quorum - The quorum necessary for the transaction of business shall be not less than two-third of the Members in the case of a meeting of the Administrative Committee and not less than one-half of the Judges in the case of a Judges - meeting".The existing Rule 32 shall be re-numbered as Sub-Rule (1) of that Rule, and the following new Sub-Rule (2) shall beFor the removal of doubt, it is hereby mentioned that all administrative work disposed of by the Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge or any other Judge or Judges to whom the work has been assigned by the Chief Justice for disposal shall be deemed to be disposed of by the Court".Rule 32 of the said Rules is as under:32. Effect of any irregularity in or omission to follow the procedure laid down in thisNo irregularity in, or omission to follow, the procedure laid down in this Chapter shall effect the validity of any order passed or anything done under these Rules.(2) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby mentioned that all administrative work disposed of by the Chief Justice, the Administrative Judge or any other Judge or Judges to whom the work has been assigned by the Chief Justice for disposal shall be deemed to be disposed of by the Court."5. On or about 17.1.1969 Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1969 came into being which inter alia contained a provision relating to grant of selection scale in terms of Rules 23 thereof which reads asto posts in the Selection Grade :-Appointments to the posts in the selection grade of the service shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the Court on the basis of merit.6. On or about 30th of April, 1990 a Committee of two Honble 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 therefor. 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 Bench 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 super time 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 promotee 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. The Committee submitted its report on 30th March, 1998, upon considering the cases of all eligible candidates in the light of the existing Rules as also the Full Court Resolutions. With a view to arrive at its finding, the Committee, however, found those officers fit and meritorious for grant of selection grade who obtained at least five outstanding /very good / good ACRs out of seven and where no adverse entry was recorded. As regards those, whose a ACRs have not been recorded for one reason or the other, the Committee deferred consideration of their cases for the time being. The Committee, however filed an additional report on 27.4.1999 whose cases were deferred earlier.8. The matter was placed before the Full Court on 30th April, 1999 by the Chief Justice. Twenty Honble Judges of the High Court participated therein. By Resolution dated 30th April, 1999, the Full Court considered the report submitted by the said two Judges Committee and approved the name of 25 officers who were found fit for grant of selection scale. The cases of the respondents herein along with four others, however, were deferred. The matter relating to the additional report of the said two Judges Committee was again placed before the Full Court on 27.11.1999. It accepted the report of the Committee and declined to grant selection scale to the respondents herein. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the aforementioned recommendations made by the High Court, the Governor by a notification dated 5.2.2000 made appointment to the officers of Higher Judicial Service named therein to the post of selection grade with effect from the date mentioned against their names respectively.9. The first respondent in each of these appeals filed writ petitions questioning non-grant of selection grade to them by filing writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.10. By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court inter alia held:(1) The Acting Chief Justice was not authorised to constitute the two Judges Committee, and, thus, it could not make / lay down any merit criteria.(2) As all the Judges of the High Court have not been consulted, the Committee appointed by the Acting Chief Justice alone could not evolve the merit criteria in view of sub-rule (h) of Rule 15 of 1952 Rules.(3) The earlier policy decision adopted by the Full Court could not be changed as Rule 15 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 followingWe 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 RIIJS, 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 wasis however made clear that though we have declared the entire exercise of the respondents in granting selection scale as illegal yet we do not intend to unsettle the grant of selection scale to twenty six judicial officers as they are not before us. We, therefore, direct that this decision shall not affect the order dated February 5, 2000 of the respondent whereby selection scale was granted to twenty six judicial officers. But if the petitioners, after consideration of their service record from 1993 to 1997 and from 1994 to 1998 are found eligible for selection scale, they shall be considered with reference to the selection of 1998 and 1999 when their junior colleagues were promoted. The petitioners in that event can be accorded the selection scale of the RHJS by creating supernumerary posts in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules."

Reasoning: 22. The High Court, in our opinion, therefore, clearly erred in arriving at the aforementioned finding that the constitution of the committee was illegal.Although Rule 15 provides that all the Judges shall be consulted in the matters enumerated therein but Rule 18 provides for the mode and manner thereof.28. If such consultation is to be made by circulation, undoubtedly, the relevant documents are required to be circulated to all the Judges. In the event, however, such consultation is to be effect by placing the matter before a Full Court, all the Judges are therefor invited but the same would not mean that in the event, one or more Judge (s) does /do not attend the Full Court, the resolution passed by it shall be 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 Honble 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.31. Interpretation of a Statute depends upon the text and context thereof. A Statute should be interpreted having regard to the purpose and object for which the same was made. The Chief Justice of a High Court although first amongst the Judges, by the nature of office he holds, he is the head of the State Judiciary. Authorisation by the Full Court in favour of the Chief Justice to constitute a Committee and / or take actions for the subordinate judiciary must be viewed from that context. Rule 15 of the Rules provides for such matters, which require consultations with the other Judges of the High Court.32. Question of consultation with the Judges would not arise unless the subject matter therefor is identified. It is for Honble the Chief Justice of the High Court to identify such matters and place the same before the Full Court with relevant papers and documents.33. It is, therefore, axiomatic that not only the Chief Justice of High Court was free to initiate any proceedings and obtain the opinion of a Committee of Judges on such matters and the only legal requirement therefor is to place such proposals together with the opinion of the Committee before the Judges of the High Court so that the matter can be fully thrashed out. Once the Full Court approves the recommendations made by the Committee of Judges, it becomes decision of the Court which could be sent to the Governor for acting thereupon.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.37. There is another aspect of the matter which may require consideration. For all intent and purport the report of the two Judges Committee has been approved by the Full Court. Once approved, it terminated into a decision of the Full Court itself. In the instant case even the Governor has acted upon the recommendations of the High Court. The writ petitioner-first respondents herein did not question the appointments of the appointees not the High Court. Thus, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that for all intent and purport the opinion of the two Judges Committee received approval at the hands of the Full Court.38. The High Court, in our opinion, further committed a manifest error in arriving at its conclusion in so far as it failed to take into consideration that Rule 15 does not postulate the prior approval of the Full Court in relation to any action which may be initiated by the Chief Justice.39. When an approval is required, an action holds good. Only if it disapproved it losses its force. Only when a permission is required, the decision does not become effective till permission is obtained. (See U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Another vs. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Another [(1995) Supp (3) SCC 456]. In the instant case both the aforementioned requirements have been fulfilled.40. There is another aspect of the matter. In terms of Rule 2(2) of the Rules, the decision of the Full Court would have a retrospective effect and retroactive operation.41. In any view of the matter, even n a case where the initial action is illegal, the same can be ratified by a body competent therefor. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court at all.Furthermore, the first respondent herein in these cases Shri P.P. Singh, Shri G.P. Pandey has been granted selection scale in RHJS with effect from 1.8.2000 and Shri P.K. Bhatia has bee given with effect from 29.3.2000. Shri P.P. Singh has also retired from service on superannuation.