Daya Ram and Others vs High Court of Judicature and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—It appears that unnecessary litigation is being generated in the matter of seniority of Routine Grade Assistant, who were earlier working as Typists in the year 1988. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 18 of 1989, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2007, recorded the statement made on behalf of the High Court that all Typists working in the High Court have been adjusted against the post of Lower Division Assistant and no person senior to the Petitioner remain to be so adjusted in the said cadre of Lower Division Assistant. It was further recorded that the Petitioners, who were adjusted against the post of Lower Division Assistant, have since been promoted on the higher post and are working therein for years together.

Therefore, the Division Bench held that there is no case for interference against the order of the Hon''ble Single Judge at that stage.

A review application was filed for clarification of the said judgment of the Division Bench. By means of the review application an issue of inter se seniority between the Typists so adjusted as Lower Division Assistant was sought to be raised. It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench hearing the review application that no such issue of inter se seniority was raised either before the Hon''ble Single Judge or before the Division Bench hearing the special appeal nor any such issue has been resolved by the Court.

In view of the aforesaid, the Division Bench disposed of the review application by observing that the Court has not adjudicated upon the inter se dispute of seniority between the parties and the issue is left to be examined by the competent authority.

A contempt petition was filed for non-compliance of the judgment and order of the Hon''ble Single Judge, being Contempt Petition No. 3984 of 2008, wherein an order was passed on 16th February, 2010 recording therein that Special Appeal No. 18 of 1989 has been dismissed by the Division Bench in the year 2007 yet the order of the Hon''ble Single Judge is not being complied with.

With reference to the order of the Contempt Court it is stated that the inter se seniority of the contesting parties, who were working as Typist, has been altered. Hence this petition.

It is stated that because of the order of the contempt court dated 16th February, 2010 that such action is being taken without considering the order passed on Review Application. Reference is also made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court wherein the final seniority list published qua Class-II Officers has been stayed, which according to the Petitioners was challenged on the same ground on which the seniority list qua the Lower Division Assistant, as notified on the official website of the High Court on 27th February, 2010, is being challenged. Challenge is also made to the order of the Hon''ble The Chief Justice dated 04.02.2010, as noticed in the modification/amendment of the seniority list dated 27.02.2010.

On a pointed query being made by this Court as to whether the order passed by the Hon''ble The Chief Justice on 04.02.2010 is on record, which is sought to be quashed by means of prayer No. 2, counsel for the Petitioners refers to the endorsement which has been made against the placement of individual persons in List-D at page 188 of the paper-book, which reads as follows:

In compliance of order of Hon''ble Court dated 28.5.1998 passed in W.P. No. 20662 of 1994 and direction given in Contempt Petition No. 3984 of 2008 and in view of the order dated 4.2.2010 of Hon''ble the Chief Justice his seniority in the cadre of Section Officer may be fixed at this place subject to the recommendation of existing Hon''ble Promotion Committee constituted for promotion to the post of Section Officer.

I am of the considered opinion that the said endorsement of the Hon''ble The Chief Justice is only for allotment of a place in the seniority list as per the order of the contempt court to be carried out subject to the recommendation of the existing Hon''ble Promotion Committee constituted for promotion to the post of Section Officer. It appears that the Hon''ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side has only issued directions for the order passed in the contempt petition i. e. an order on judicial side being carried out.

I am of the considered opinion that such order of the Hon''ble The Chief Justice on the administrative side, which is only for the purpose of carrying out the order passed on the judicial side, cannot be subjected to challenge by means of separate writ petition. The proper remedy available to the Petitioner is to file an application for impleadment, if he is so advised, in the contempt petition itself where directions have been issued or to challenge the order of the contempt court by way of appeal, specifically when the placement has been made subject to the recommendation of the Promotion Committee. No interference is warranted at this stage of the proceedings.

Writ petition is dismissed.