Kerala High Court
Ms.Vidya Gopan vs High Court Of Kerala on 29 January, 2021
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R)
PETITIONERS :-
1 Ms.VIDYA GOPAN, AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.K.GOPAKUMAR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, RESIDENCY ROAD,
AKSHAYA NAGAR - 9, KADAPPAKADA.P.O.,
KOLLAM - 691 008.
2 MS.JINI B.G., AGED 38 YEARS
D/O.LATE P. BAHULEYA PANICKER, PEZHUVILA VEEDU,
ANTHIYOORKONAM, KOLLODE.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571.
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
RESPONDENTS :-
1 HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM - 682 031
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, JAISALMER HOUSE,
NEW DELHI - 400 011.
BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-12-2020, THE COURT ON 29.01.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R)
-: 2 :-
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.32617 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
Two candidates appointed as Court Managers in the High Court of Kerala on contract basis have approached this Court challenging Ext.P19 decision of the Committee for framing High Court Rules and High Court Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules Committee' for short) of this Court amending the High Court Rules by incorporating the post of Court Manager in the Rules and prescribing the qualifications and method of appointment for the same. Declaratory reliefs to the effect that Ext.P12 order of the Supreme Court applies to the petitioners as well is also sought for. The petitioners seek regularisation of their service as Court Managers in the High Court on the strength of Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court.
2. The petitioners were appointed as Court Managers on a temporary basis pursuant to a notification dated 17.2.2014. It is stated that the post of Court Managers in the High Court and District Courts were created pursuant to the recommendations of the XIIIth Finance Commission. Pursuant to Exts.P2 to P4, Ext.P5 WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 3 :- notification was issued for direct recruitment to two posts of Court Managers in the High Court. The qualification and term of appointment prescribed in the said notification were as follows :-
"8. Qualification:
(a) A degree or advanced diploma in general management;
(b) 5 years' experience/training in systems and process management;
(c) 5 years' experience/training in IT systems management, HR management, financial systems management;
(d) Excellent people skills;
(e) Excellent communication skills;
(f) Excellent computer application skills.
9. Term of Appointment: The appointment will be purely
temporary coterminous with the XIIIth Finance Commission Award period."
Ext.P6 ranked list was prepared and the petitioners were appointed on temporary/contract basis on execution of Exts.P7 and P8 contracts. The term of appointment was extended from time to time. While so, the Supreme Court, by Ext.P12 order issued in the All India Judges Association's case directed the regularisation of the Court Managers appointed in the District Courts. It is contended that several High Courts also regularised the services of Court Managers appointed in the respective High Courts following the Supreme Court directions. The petitioners also submitted WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 4 :- representations to the High Court seeking regularisation of their services. The said representations were referred to the Rules Committee of this Court. By Ext.P19 proceedings, the Rules Committee considered the entire issue and rejected the petitioners' request for regularisation and directed fresh selection after amending the Rules. The Rules were thereafter amended incorporating the post of Court Manager with the qualifications as under :-
"Minimum Qualifications:
1. Educational - (a) University Degree (Regular)
(b) MBA (Regular) from a recognised university.
(c) Desirable: LL.B. Degree (Regular) from a recognised university.
2. Experience - (i) Five years experience as Court Manager in High Court, Subordinate Courts.
OR 5 years experience in State/ Central Government or PSUs in a Gazetted/managerial capacity.
OR Five years experience in IT systems and Process Management or Financial Management or Human Resource Management in a managerial capacity.
(ii) Excellent communication skills, and;
(iii) Excellent Computer Application skills."
WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 5 :- It is submitted that further steps for conducting the selection to the post of Court Manager afresh has been taken by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent.
4. The only question to be decided in this writ petition is with regard to the legality of the proceedings of the Rules Committee of the High Court directing the conduct of fresh selection to the post of Court Managers in the High Court.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were also appointed as Court Managers after undergoing the very same process of selection as Court Managers in the District Courts in the year 2014. It is contended that the directions issued by the Apex Court to regularise the services of Court Managers would apply to the persons appointed in the High Court as well.
6. A statement and an additional statement have been placed on record by the High Court of Kerala. It is contended that appointments to the post of Court Managers was initially WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 6 :- contemplated by way of deputation or deployment. Since there were no suitable candidates available, direct recruitment was resorted to and the vacancies were notified for temporary/contract appointments. It is stated that the posts had been filled up on a temporary basis, until the posts were created in accordance with rules and regular appointments were made. It is further submitted that the question considered in Ext.P12 was specifically with regard to the appointment of Court Managers in the District Courts. It is submitted that the representations made by the petitioners had been referred to the Rules Committee. It is stated that the Committee considered the issue and found that the direction of the Apex Court has no application in the matter of appointment of Court Managers in the High Court and rejected the representations for regularisation. It was also resolved to fill up the two permanent posts of Court Managers in the High Court by direct recruitment. The qualifications for the post were also fixed. It is further stated that the petitioners, who are continuing as Court Managers, were given relaxation of the upper age limit to enable them to participate in the selection. It is contented that the case of Court Managers in District Courts and the Court Managers of this Court stand on completely different footings and that under WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 7 :- Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice is the authority in the matter of appointment of Officers and staff of the High Court. It is, therefore, contended that the decision of the Rules Committee was completely in order.
7. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners as against the statement filed by the 1st respondent.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, I find that there are substantial distinctions between the case of Court Managers in the High Court and in the District Courts. Appointments in the High Court are to be made by the Chief Justice in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The power is absolute and subject only to the provisions of the Article. The appointment of Court Managers in the High Court had been made only on a temporary basis. The directions of the Apex Court were issued specifically in respect of posts and reforms required in District Courts and other courts in the lower Judiciary. The said order has no application whatsoever to appointments made to posts in the High Court by the Chief Justice or his nominee under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The proposals sent by the High Court to the Government were also only with regard to regularisation of the Court Managers working in the District WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 8 :- Courts. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners had approached the Supreme court filing Ext.P17 application for impleadment in W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 and Ext.P18 for directions to absorb them as Court Managers. By Ext.P23 order dated 7.11.2019, the I.A was disposed of reserving liberty to the applicants to raise a challenge to Ext.P19 decision. This is apparently because the directions in the order dated 2.8.2018 were with regard to appointment of Court Managers in the District Courts and the direction for regularisation did not cover the appointment in the High Courts, where appointments are to be made under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. By Ext.P19 order, the Rules Committee, to whom the representations submitted by the petitioners had also been forwarded, considered the issue and resolved as follows :-
"The Committee also observed that the functions and responsibilities attached to the post of Court Manager demand the services of well qualified and experienced professionals and hence it is not desirable to fill the posts following 'by transfer' method as demanded by the Kerala High Court Staff Association. Committee was of the unanimous view that the posts need to be filled up by direct recruitment specifically notifying that the recruitment is against permanent vacancies so as to attract qualified, experienced and talented professionals. However the Committee agreed that in the case of those who are having experience as Court Managers in High Courts and subordinate courts age relaxation equivalent to their WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 9 :- experience in the said posts can be allowed. Considering all the aforesaid aspects, the Committee resolved to include the post of Court Manager in the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007 and to prescribe the qualifications method of appointment and other conditions as shown below.
The post of Court Manager be inserted as Sub Division 7A, Division I under Rule 4 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007. Method of appointment - Direct Recruitment Minimum Qualifications:
1. Educational - (a) University Degree (Regular)
(b) MBA (Regular) from a recognised university.
(c) Desirable: LL.B. Degree (Regular) from a recognised university.
2. Experience - 3 years experience in any High Court or subordinate courts or State or Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings as Court Manager or in managerial capacity.
In Rule 8, sub clause (vii) shall be inserted as follows :
(vii) In the case of appointments to the post of Court Manager, by direct recruitment, persons who have experience as Court Manager in High Courts or Subordinate courts shall be eligible for relaxation of upper age limit up to the period of service rendered as Court Manager. This relaxation will be in addition to the age relaxation admissible, if any, as per any other provision.
The Registry is directed to publish draft notification incorporating the above in the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007, in compliance to Rule 39 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007. "
After making the necessary inclusions in the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007, regular selection was notified. WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 10 :- In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Committee does not suffer any infirmity, since no selection for a regular appointment had been made under the directions of the Chief Justice to the posts available in the High Court. The decision of the Rules Committee rejecting the request for regularisation and directing the conduct of a fresh selection cannot be held to be illegal. The petitioners are also not put to any prejudice by the said decision since their right to participate in the selection stands protected.
The writ petition, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/11.1.2021 WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 11 :- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE THIRTEENTH FINANCE COMMISSION ISSUED ON 20.09.2010 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTERS TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE CHIEF SECRETARIES OF THE VARIOUS STATE GOVERNMENTS EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DATED 15.03.2011 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O. (MS)NO.265/2011/HOME DATED 28.11.2011 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS)84/2013/ HOME DATED 30.03.2013 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 1.07.2014 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.04.2017 ENTERED INTO WITH THE FIRST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.04.2017 ENTERED INTO WITH THE SECOND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O(RT)NO.1110/2016/HOME DATED 29.03.2016 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.69/2017/HOME DATED 31.03.2017 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2018 PASSED BY THE APEX COURT IN IA NO.279/2010 IN WP9C)NO.1022/1989 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (APPOINTMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF COURT MANAGERS FOR THE STATE OF ASSAM) RULES, 2018 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2018 OF TH HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASATHAN IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO.3091/2015 WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 12 :- EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.11.2018 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.01.2019 SEEKING IMPLEADMENT OF THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS PARTY PETITIONERS IN WP(C)NO.1022/1989 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION DATED 14.10.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN WP(C)NO.1022/1989 EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE FOR FRAMING HIGH COURT RULES AND HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES DATED 07.12.2018 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 21.01.2019 EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21.01.2019 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE KERALA HIGH COURT SERVICE RULES 2007 EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 21.03.2019 ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 26.02.2019 EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 22.08.2019 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 19.06.2019 EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN W.P. (C)NO.1022/1989 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DATED 15.04.2019 EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(c) NO.
1893/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 22.07.2020.
WP(C).No.32617 OF 2019(R) -: 13 :- EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.9.2020 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA.
EXHIBIT P30(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P30. EXHIBIT P31: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH TO THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P31(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P31. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER No.G.O. (MS)No.42/2020/HOME DATED 03.02.2020.
ANNEXURE R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(Rt.)No. 427/2020/HOME DATED 07.02.2020.
ANNEXURE R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(Rt.)No. 1138/2020/HOME DATED 13.05.2020.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE