Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Agrawal Son Of Sri Rama Kant ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 13 June, 2006
Author: A.P. Sahi
Bench: A.P. Sahi
JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. This petition calls in question the scope and extent of the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, concerning ad hoc engagements against class III posts, in the subordinate judiciary. The petitioners had initially preferred this writ petition for a mandamus seeking continuance on ad hoc basis against the posts on which they had been engaged in the district judgeship of Auraiya and have later on by way of an amendment, assailed the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 25.11.2005 whereby the proposal of the learned District Judge, Auraiya, as forwarded and recommended by Hon'ble the Administrative Judge for continuing the petitioners has been rejected.
2. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Krishna was heard on behalf of the petitioners and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been very ably defended on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by Sri Amit Sthalekar, Advocate.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the Respondent No. 1.
4. The sessions division of Auraiya came into existence by way of notifications dated 25.6.1998 and 17.1.1999, after the district of Auraiya was carved out as a new district in the year 1995 and notified in 1997. With the creation of this new sessions division, ;which had been cawed out from the district of Etawah, the need arose for making arrangements for the engagement of employees in the district judgeship of Auraiya.
5. Two notifications are stated to have been issued which are referred to in the report of the District Judge dated 7.10.2005. The said notifications appear to have been issued by the High Court on 3.8.1998 and 12.1.2000 permitting ad hoc engagements.
6. All the 12 petitioners were engaged for a period of three months in the year 2000 for the first time. Their engagements on ad hoc basis appear to have been extended for short durations of two months and three months. Thereafter, their last extension expired on 31.8.2005.
7. It is claimed that the said extensions were granted approval by the High Court from time to time. The petitioners were engaged in the lowest grade of class III in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. The District Judge, Auraiya, submitted a report on 7.10.2005 stating therein that the services of the petitioners may be extended till the regular selections are made. The said extension was, however, not granted by this Court by any express order as a result whereof the petitioners filed the instant writ petition claiming continuance in service and payment of salary in lieu thereof. This Court passed the following interim order on 28.10.2005:
Sri K.R. Sirohi, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-Affidavit may he filed within one week thereafter.
List on 8th December, 2005.
Till the next date of listing, if there is requirement of employment of ad hoc/temporary employees, for discharging the duties, which were being performed by the petitioner, the respondents- authorities shall offer appointment to the petitioner first before recruitment of new hand on temporary/ ad hoc basis. The process of selection for regular appointment, already commenced, may continue.
8. The aforesaid interim order only made a provision for engagement of the petitioners provided such engagements were necessary and further only if the District Judge was proceeding to engage fresh hands. The District Judge on 31.10.2005 taking note of the interim order simply recorded that in the event any fresh engagements are made, the claim of the petitioners shall be considered.
9. Thereafter the matter appears to have been brought to the notice of the Administrative Judge, Auraiya, who, on the basis of the report of the District Judge dated 7,10.2005, made a recommendation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice seeking permission to continue the petitioners for another period of six months as the regular engagements were likely to take some time. This recommendation of Hon'ble the Administrative Judge dated 22.11.2005 was rejected by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 25.11.2005. The petitioners have assailed this order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as well by way of an amendment application. From the report of the District Judge dated 7.10.2005 it appears that two other employees in class III were continuing under the interim orders of this Court passed in two separate writ petitions which are still pending consideration. The report further details the existence of 64 class III posts in all, in the Establishment of the District Judgeship Auraiya. It is stated in the said report that there are 34 class III employees working and there are 30 vacancies available for being filled up. The report also indicates that one Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has been created for Tehsil - Bidhuna and with its coming into operation an additional six class III posts would further be available raising the total strength to 70. The District Judge has further indicated that apart from himself, there were four other officers currently functioning at Auraiya. The process of regular appointment has already started as the advertisement for fresh appointment for 20 posts had already been made on 17.2.2005. The District Judge requested for some more time to complete the selection process as would be evident from a perusal of the said report dated 7.10.2005. The facts enumerated above would indicate that there are only five judicial officers functioning in the district Judgeship Auraiya which is less than the total strength of officials at Auraiya.
10. It is in the aforesaid background of facts that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners has to be assessed.
11. The principal grounds of challenge in the present writ petition are; firstly that the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 25.11.2005 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Chief Justice was not possessed of the authority to reject the proposal forwarded by the Administrative Judge for continuing the ad hoc engagements of the petitioners as the same could have been done only by the Administrative Committee of the High Court; secondly, the impugned order dated 25.11.2005 cannot with stand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as Hon'ble the Chief Justice has not recorded any reason for rejecting the proposal; and the thirdly the impugned order suffers from the vice of unreasonableness as it ignores the recommendations of the District Judge and the Hon'ble Administrative Judge which indicate rational reasons for continuing the services of the petitioners.
12. The aforesaid submissions have been advanced by Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, by referring to various constitutional provisions, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, the General Rules (Civil) and the Allahabad High Court Rules. The relevant provisions are being quoted just for ready reference.
I. The Provisions of the Constitution of India.
Article 225 - Jurisdiction of existing High Courts - Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by this Constitution, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court, and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to he administration of justice in the Court, including any power to made rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof sitting alone or in Division Courts, shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution:
(Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction by any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this constitutional no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction.) Article 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 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 State Public Service Commission.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of 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.
Article 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 Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this 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 authorizing the High Court to deal with him otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law.
II. Code of Civil Procedure PART- X Section 122. Power of certain High Courts to make rules - High Courts (not being the Court of a Judicial Commissioner) may, from time to time after previous publication, make rules regulating their own procedure and the procedure of the Civil Courts subject to their superintendence, and may by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the First Schedule.
III. General Rules (Civil), 1957 Rule 5. Administrative Control - Subject to the Superintendence of the High Court, the District Judge shall have administrative control over all Civil Courts including the Court of Additional District Judge within the local limits of his jurisdiction, and where two or more courts are located at a place other than the headquarters of the District Judge the officer of the highest rank or amongst the officers of the same rank the senior-most officer in the station will be in immediate administrative charge of all the Civil Courts there subject to the administrative control of the District Judge.
Rule 269. District Judge to be informed when work increases for Copyists - If in any court, copying work increases so much that the existing staff of copyists cannot cope with it, the head copyists shall at once report to the District Judge, in the case of the Court of the District Judge, through the Munsarim of that court, and in the case of any other court, through the presiding officer of the court. The District Judge shall ascertain whether any increase of establishment is necessary; and if an increase be necessary in his opinion, he shall report the matter for the orders of the High Court. In urgent cases the District Judge may employ extra copyists and report to the High Court.
Rule 270. District Judge to be informed when work not sufficient for copyist - If, in any court, copying work falls off so that every copyist cannot be fully employed, the head copyists shall at once report to the District Judge, in the case of the District Judge, through the Munsarim of that court, and in the case of any other court, through the presiding officer of the court. The District Judge shall thereupon hold in abeyance fresh appointments to his clerical establishment till such time as he considers necessary.
628. Paid Apprentices - An apprentice is meant to be a reserve, and a substitute must not be engaged for him so long as he is temporarily employed in short vacancies in permanent appointment, or when he is on leave for not more than three months.
Note.- 'Short Vacancy' is one for a period not exceeding three months, (G.O. No. 5951-C/V11-525, dated 28th August, 1926).
628-A. (Appointment of paid apprentices - All appointments of paid apprentices shall be made in order of merit from amongst the candidates, who have been successful at the competitive examination for ministerial staff.
629. Claims of apprentice to posts. -- Apprentices shall have appointments in the office of the court in which they are employed at the time in preference to all other candidates, except those who have been discharged on reduction of establishment.
IV. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 read with U.P. Rules for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Offices in U.P., 1950 7, (3) Casual vacancies may be filled up by appointing persons who have not taken the test, but their further retention shall depend on their taking the next test and being selected in it.
V. The Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 CHAPTER-III Rules 4. The following shall be the allocation of executive and Administrative work between the Chief Justice, the (Administrative Judge) the Administrative Committee and the Full Court:
(A) Matters for the Chief Justice
1. General supervision and control of subordinate courts and the Vigilance Cell subject to these Rules.
2. Co-ordination of the work of different Committees and the (Administrative Judge).
3. Constituting Committees of Judges to examine any specified matter.
4. Assigning districts to (Administrative Judge).
5. Mid-term posting and transfers of officers of the subordinate judiciary, in consultation with two (two members of the Administrative Committee).
6. Inter district transfer of employee of the subordinate courts.
7. All residuary matters not allotted to any Committee or Administrative Judge.
(B) MATTERS FOR (ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES)
1. Review of judicial work of subordinate courts, tribunals district consumer forums and all other special courts and control of their working including inspection thereof, to record entries in the character rolls of the officers posted in the division assigned to the (Administrative Judge).
2. Perusal of returns, calendars, evaluation of inspection reports made by the Presiding Officers in respect of their own offices, audit reports received from those courts, tribunals etc., and to make orders thereon.
3. Any adverse remarks or strictures made by an (Administrative Judge) about judicial work, conduct or integrity of any officer under his charge will be communicated to the officer concerned, who may make his representations, if any, within a month and the same shall be placed before the Administrative Committee for consideration and decision.
4. Grant of earned leave to officers posted in the sessions devision under the charge of the Administrative Judge.
5. Grant of casual leave (including special casual leave) and permission to leave near a quarters to the District & Sessions Judge,, presiding officers of the tribunals and special courts etc. howsoever designated.
6. Disposal of appeals against orders of punishment imposed on and representations etc. of the employees of the subordinate courts.
(C) MATTERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.
1. Annual postings and transfers of officers of the subordinate judiciary
2. Deputation of officers of the subordinate judiciary and their withdrawal.
3. Consideration of the preliminary report in disciplinary matters and directing holding of disciplinary enquiry against officers of the subordinate judiciary.
4. Suspension of officers of the subordinate judiciary pending disciplinary enquiry.
5. Award censure entries to officers of subordinate judiciary.
6. Temporary promotion of officers to the cadres of Civil Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates.
7. Confirmation, promotion, selection grade, super sessions and reversions of officers of the subordinate judiciary.
8. Investiture of powers on officers of the subordinator judiciary.
9. Creation and abolition of posts.
10. Issuing circulars and general letters for the guidance of subordinate courts.
11. Fixing working hours, vacation for the subordinate courts calendars and list of holidays for courts.
12. matters referred to the Administrative Committee by the Chief Justice.
13. Matters in which the opinion of the High Court is sought for by the Union or the State Government.
14. Permission to cross efficiency bar to officers of the subordinate judiciary.
15. Finalisation of the list of holidays, working hours, vacations and calendars of the Court.
16. Decision of the reports of the Administrative Judge including annual confidential remarks recorded by him in respect of an officer in his charge.
17. Consideration for representations against the decisions of the Committee relating to adverse remarks and strictures.
(D) MATTERS FOR THE FULL COURT
1. Direct recruitment of District Judges and recommendations to Government regarding promotion to the Cadre of District Judges.
2. Grant of suer-time pay scale to offices of Higher Judicial Service, reduction in rank, premature, retirement and refusal of extension beyond 58 years to officers of the subordinate judiciary.
3. Termination of services of temporary officers and probationers of the subordinate judiciary.
4. Subject to Sub-clause (5) to Clause B and Sub-clauses 4 (a) to Clause C, Consideration of final reports of disciplinary inquiries in respect of officers of the subordinate judiciary and taking decision as to punishment and further action.
5. Proposals as to legislation or changes in law.
6. Making and amending Rules of the Court.
7. Making and amending Rules for the guidance of subordinate courts.
8. General policy matters and matters affecting the powers and status of the court.
9. Consideration of general annual report of administration of justice to be sent to Government.
10. Matters which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Committee or any five Judges may consider fit to be placed before the Full Court.
13. Before proceeding to consider the submissions advanced, it deserves to be recorded that Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, has conceded to this position that the Petitioners have no vested right to the posts against which they are claiming continuance on ad hoc basis but he urges, that in the event the order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice is found to be vulnerable, then the petitioners can at least claim continuance till regular selections are made. In view of this submission, it is necessary to examine the contentions of the petitioners.
14. The first issue raised is in respect of the scope of ad hoc engagements in subordinate courts. In this regard, it is relevant to point out that there is no provision under the 1947 Rules for engaging ad hoc hands. However, Rule 7(3) of 1950 Rules provides for casual engagement. The other provisions, which are available, are under the General Rules (Civil), 1957 framed by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code. The District Judge, being the administrative head, has been conferred the authority under the Rules 269 and 270 to engage copyists for short durations in order to cope up with the work of the Copying Section. The said rule further provides that the District Judge shall hold in abeyance fresh appointments to his clerical establishment till such time as he considers necessary. Further the provisions for paid apprentices have I been made and Rule 628-A provides that all appointments of paid apprentices shall be made in order of merit from amongst the candidates who have been successful at the competitive examinations held for appointment of ministerial staff. A preferential claim in the lower grade of appointments has been extended to such paid apprentices under Rule 629. A paid apprentice is meant to be a reserve as a substitute and not for more than three months. This stands clearly explained by the Note appended to Rule 628.
15. Apart from the aforesaid provisions, there are no other statutory provisions for engagement of ad hoc hands in the establishment of the subordinate courts.
16. It appears that indiscriminate engagements by the District Judges in subordinate judiciaries were being made on ad hoc basis as a result whereof the following note was prepared by the then Joint Registrar (Presently Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J) on 7.5.1992 which was put up before the then Registrar for appropriate action. The said note would be useful for appreciating the present controversy, as such, is being quoted in extenso herein after.
Registrar, It is brought to your kind notice that ad hoc appointment is made when some Courts are transferred from one districpo another or some Judicial Officers are appointed and there is no select list of Class III employees prepared under Rule 5 of the U.P. Rules for the recruitment of Ministerial Staff of the Subordinate Officers in Uttar Pradesh, 1950 or of Class IV employees prepared under the U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955. Some times ad hoc appointments of class III employees are made by the District Judge under Rule 269 of General Rule (Civil), Rule 269 contemplates that the District Judge shall ascertain whether any increase of establishment is necessary, considering the increasing work of Copying Department and if it is necessary, he shall report the matter for the orders of Hon'ble Court. This Rule also provides that in urgent cases the District Judge may employ extra copyist and report to the High Court. This appointment is made for specific period. Government notifications vide flag A have been issued time to time against ad hoc appointments and it is emphasized that such appointment should not be made beyond six months or one year. The State Government has time to time condemned ad hoc appointments as the principle of reservation are not followed and after three years ad hoc appointees claim regularization under the U.P. Regularization of ad hoc appointment on post outside the purview of Public Service Commission (Amendment's Rule) which closes the opportunity for those candidates who want fair selection through regular recruitment. Some time when District Judges proceed for regular recruitment ad hoc appointees file writs. All this gives birth to administrative problem and flood of public complaints flow raising issues of favoritism and ad hoc appointments being made on extraneous consideration. For example, some ad hoc appointments were made in Lucknow. Civil Court. Regular recruitment could not be made due to efforts of these ad hoc employees. Some of them were regularised and some are still working on ad hoc basis. Dr. Nepal Singh, Member, Vidhan Parishad, raised question in the Assembly on which comment was called for from Hon'ble Court. As is evident from the letter of the Joint Secretary (Law) attached herewith after receiving the report from the District Judge, Lucknow, reply was sent. But the Government was not satisfied and seven queries were made by the Government vide Flag-B. Again report was obtained from the District Judge, Lucknow, and it has been sent to State Government U.P. This matter was raised before the government on the complaint that appointments are being made in Civil Courts from back door of ad hoc appointment and the principle of merit and reservation are not being followed. When ad hoc appointments are made, it gives birth of complaints from the side of public of the District and the officials of District courts. They make complaints against District Judge and some time against higher administrative authorities. It lowers down the reputation of the judiciary in the eye of the public. Now-a-days such complaints find place in news paper and pamphlets. Class III and Class IV, Civil Court Employees Associations also have raised this issue as is evident from the note dated 25.3.1992 prepared on the basis of meeting which did take place between Hon'ble Chief Justice and U.P. Class IV Civil Court employees Association on 24.3.1992 at 4.00 p.m. in his lordship's Chamber. Employees Association pressed that ad hoc appointments be immediately stopped, otherwise there will be great dis-contentment and reaction on the part of these employees which will cause hindrance in smooth functioning of the judicial work in-civil courts.
Considering the facts that Assembly Questions are being raised, public complaints are being made, dis-satisfaction prevails amongst public of the Districts and officials of the judgeship and allegations are made against the District Judge affecting smooth administration of civil court and it gives opportunity to the Class III and Class IV employees of the Association to make complaints or writs are filed in the Hon'ble Court, it has become necessary that ad hoc appointments be made in rare circumstances.
Hon'ble A.J.-3 passed order on 14.5.1991 dis-approving the idea of ad hoc appointments vide flag C. Hon'ble A.J.-5 also passed order staying ad hoc appointments. Standards adopted in making appointments differ from one zone to another zone. There should be uniformity in making ad hoc appointments. Hence if appointments are made with kind approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, there will be uniformity in this matter throughout the State and it will be in the knowledge of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in advance, before delegation of Class III and Class IV employees meets and makes complaint.
Hence if approved, this note along with concerned papers may be laid before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for kind approval that no ad hoc appointment on class III posts in regular line of clerks or Stenographers will be made in civil court U.P. without prior approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
17. The said note was put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice who directed it to be placed before the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee on 15.7,1992 passed the following resolution;
Excerpt from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Administrative Committee held on 15.7.1992.
Agenda Resolution
17. To consider the note of the
Joint Registrar (Sri K.N. Ojha)
dated May 7, 1992 regarding
appointing of class III employees
on ad hoc basis.
17. The order of Hon'ble the
Chief Justice dated May 22,
1992 relating to adhoc
appointments to class III in the
subordinate courts was
considered. Resolved that No.
appointment on ad hoc basis.
without prior approval of
Hon'ble the Chief Justice, be
made in the subordinate courts.
Further resolved that all the
District Judges in the State be
asked to send a list of persons
employed on ad hoc basis.
18. The said resolution was circulated by the Registrar vide order dated 27.5.1992 enforcing the said resolution which clearly provided that no appointment on ad hoc basis against Class III posts in subordinate courts shall be made without the prior approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
19. Another circular of the Court dated 27.7.1994 which is being relied upon by the petitioners deserves mention at this stage. The said circular provided for adjustment of Class III employee of shifting of courts. This was with regard to the existing ad hoc hands who were to be engaged from the select list prepared at the time of selection through competitive examination as indicated in the General Rules (Civil) referred to herein above. It further clarifies that in case more hands were required then such ad hoc employees who may have a possible claim of regularisation should be considered.
20. Apart from this another circular of the High Court dated 24.5.1996 is relevant to the issue. Even though the said Circular has not been brought on record yet the same finds reference in detail in the judgment of Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur reported in 1997 (1) ESC 655 (paragraph No. 7) at page 662. The said guidelines clearly provide that no ad hoc appointment against class-Ill post shall be resorted to under Rule 269 of the General Rules (Civil) without the previous permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and such appointment shall not be made for a period extending beyond 3 months The said judgment of this Court was upheld by the Apex Court which decision is reported in (2001) 1 SCC 37.
21. The issue which has now to be answered in the aforesaid backdrop is the power of Hon'ble the Chief Justice in such matters. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to point out that the power of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution of India in respect of the matters of the employees of the High Court is clearly defined.
22. As pointed out by Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the power exercisable over subordinate court vests in the High Court and not in the Chief Justice alone. However, this is subjected to the laws made by the legislature as indicated in Article 225 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 225 of the Constitution, Rules have been framed namely the Allahabad High Court Rules and which confer powers on the Chief Justice and the Administrative Committee to exercise control over the subordinate judiciary in respect of matters stated therein. Another power conferred on the High Court is under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code under which the General Rules (Civil), 1957 have been framed. In exercise of the powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, the Allahabad High Court Rules provide that the Chief Justice under Sub-rule A(1) of Rule 4 of Chapter-III shall have the power of general supervision and control of subordinate courts. Sub-rule (2) of the same Rules provides for co-ordination of the work of the Administrative Judge of the district concerned with the Chief Justice. Sub-rule 7 thereof makes the Chief Justice a repository of all residuary matters not allotted to any Committee or Administrative Judge.
23. Inviting the attention of the Court to Sub-rule 9 and Sub-rule 10 of the Heading "C" of Rule 4 of Chapter-III. Sri Ravi Kant urges that it is the Administrative Committee alone which has the power to issue Circulars or directions in respect of ad hoc engagements, as the Rules referred to herein above, also confers the authority of creation and abolition of post on the Administrative Committee. He contends that by virtue of such powers all actions including appointment on ad hoc basis can be done under the authority of the Administrative Committee alone and not the Chief Justice.
24. The said argument on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that the Rules referred to by the petitioners relate to the creation and abolition of post. They do not contain any measure which may prohibit or restrict the power of the Chief Justice to either order or withhold approval of ad hoc engagements against class-III posts in the subordinate judiciary. There being no prohibition either express implied, the Chief Justice will continue to enjoy such powers in the matters of ad hoc engagement under the residuary clause contained in Clause 7 read with Clause (1) of the powers conferred on the Chief Justice under Heading "A" of Rule 4 of Chapter-III of the High Court Rules referred to herein above. Even otherwise in case it is accepted that the power to issue Circulars for the guidance of subordinate courts vests with the Administrative Committee, then in that event the resolution of the Administrative Committee dated 15.7.1992 quoted herein above fully acknowledges the power of the Chief Justice to the said effect, that no appointment on ad hoc basis shall be made except with his prior approval. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, the power of the Chief Justice in respect of the subject matter in controversy to withhold approval becomes unquestionable. In view of this, the first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the Chief justice has acted without jurisdiction deserves to be rejected.
25. The next issue is that as to whether the impugned order can be interfered with on the ground that it does not contain any reasons. The Chief Justice of a High Court is the prime source of power for exercising control over the entire judicial system of the State. He enjoys a unique and a very exalted constitutional position. It will be difficult to accept that a high constitutional authority like Hon'ble the Chief Justice to have acted unreasonably by not recorded reasons unless it can be shown that the order is otherwise perverse. To examine this issue, it would be necessary to re-capitulate the facts in the instant case. The report of the District Judge clearly records that there are only 5 Officers working at Auraiya including the District Judge himself. The District Judge and the Hon'ble Administrative Judge have nowhere indicated the ratio of the requirement of engaging ad hoc hands keeping in view the number of courts available. Out of the 12 petitioners, 2 had been engaged as Typists and the rest of them had been engaged as Copyists. 3 of them were assigned the job of Stenographers after having been engaged as Copyists. One person had been engaged as a Librarian and another was allowed to operate the photostat machine. It is, thus, clear that 10 out of the 12 petitioners had been engaged as Copyists and their continuance as such were not required and therefore, they were given different assignments. In the absence of any need of Copyists, it is obvious that some of the petitioners were continued against posts for which the District Judge had no authority to make ad hoc engagement under any rule. This also indicates the absence of requirement of Copyists. These factors have not been taken notice of either by the District Judge or by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge while making their recommendations. These documents were put up along with the detailed note before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who after perusing the same rejected the proposal of continuance. In my opinion, there were sufficient reasons on record for the Chief Justice to have taken such a view and, therefore, the order of rejection cannot be said to be deficient for want of reasons. The same reasoning would apply for the third argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Apart from this, what appears is that ad hoc hands are allowed to be continued for long periods without holding examinations for fresh engagement under the Rules. In the instant case, the examinations were being postponed and ultimately the excuse made for continuing ad hoc engagements is that such regular engagement is likely to take some more time. The time which was required by the District Judge for completing the process of regular engagement is also nearing completion and there does not appear to be any reason for further continuing the ad hoc engagement. It is reported that the process of fresh engagement is under progress. Keeping in view the said circumstances as also the fact that there are only 5 courts functioning at Auraiya, there does not appear to be any other reason available to fault the decision of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
26. Sri Ravi Kant has urged that the report of the District Judge and the Administrative Judge indicates the requirement, and the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice impugned herein, does not take any exception to the said facts hence the order is vitiated. The argument of Sri Ravi Kant is, that howsoever high dignitary or a constitutional authority may be, yet the actions of such an authority is amenable to scrutiny in the event it violates any provision of Part III of the Constitution of India or is otherwise perverse. There cannot be any dispute with that proposition as there is no authority or officer under any law for the time being in force, who can claim immunity from the provisions of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The action of the Chief Justice on the administrative side in the matters of control over subordinate courts can be subject matter of judicial review provided the aforesaid ingredients are available. In the instant case, the opinion formed by the Chief Justice cannot be said to be so arbitrary, capricious or irrational so as to justify any interference on the grounds urged in the present writ petition. The facts, as brought out herein above and the reasons stated, do not call for any interference with the action of Hon'ble the Chief Justice even otherwise. A plethora of decisions have been cited on behalf of the petitioners which have been compiled and handed down to the Court. On this issue, Sri Ravi Kant invited the attention of the Court to the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph No. 11 of the judgment in the case of H.C. Puttaswami and Ors. v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 421, wherein the Apex Court has observed that "High Court or the Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge is not an absolute ruler. Nor he is a free wheeler. He must operate in the clean world of law, not in the neighborhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carrying out the administrative functioning, he is actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is serving. He cannot depart from and indeed must remain committed to the Constitutional ethos and tradition of his calling. We need hardly say that those who are expected to oversee the conduct of others, must necessarily maintain a higher standard of ethical and intellectual rectitude. The public expectations do not seem to be less exacting".
27. The aforesaid preposition relied upon by Sri Ravi Kant cannot be disputed but in the instant ease Hon'ble the Chief Justice has endeavour to implement the desire of the High Court finding it necessary to do so in the circumstances as indicated herein above. The other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not being referred to as in the opinion of the Court they are not necessary for disposing the issues raised herein above.
28. For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.