Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. In the backdrop of the origin and evolution of the Gauhati High Court, it is relevant to take note the powers of the Chief Justice in relation to officers and servants of the Gauhati High Court. Article 229 of the Constitution specifically deals with the power of the Chief Justice in so far as officers and servants of the High Court. Article 229 of the Constitution reads as under:-

Article 229 in Constitution of India
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:

20. Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution provides that 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 the Chief Justice may direct, i.e. his nominee. The proviso to Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution empowers the Governor of the State to require by Rule in certain cases to make appointments after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. It is very apposite herein to mention that Article 367 (1) of the Constitution mandates that the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. It is however relevant herein to mention that the application of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would be subject to any adaptation and modifications that may be made under Article 372 of the Constitution. In this regard, this Court finds it Page No.# 24/41 pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Others vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Others, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 34 wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the power conferred upon the Chief Justice of the High Court in terms with Article 229 (1) of the Constitution. Paragraph No. 29 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

21. Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution contains two important parts. The first is that the conditions of service of officers and servants of the High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by the Rules made by the Chief Justice or his nominee. This is, however, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State. The second is that the Rules, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor.

22. The Rules of 1967 are Rules made in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it relevant to take note of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. B. Mathur & Others vs. Chief Justice of Delhi High Court & Others , reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 34 wherein the Supreme Court observed that administrative instructions cannot override the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution although the Authority issuing the administrative instructions may be the same Authority who prescribed the Rules. This aspect is important which would be dealt with in the later segments of the instant judgment.

27. The analysis of the above provisions of the Constitution, i.e. Articles 202, 203 & 204 of the Constitution is for the purpose of determining the scope and power of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution keeping in mind that the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure the independence of the High Court. It is also pertinent to observe that the framers of the Constitution in enacting Article 229 of the Constitution had clearly intended that in the matter of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court, the Chief Justice or his nominee would be the Supreme Authority and there can be no interference by the Executive except to the limited extent that is provided in Article 229 of the Constitution itself as referred to herein above. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to refer to Paragraph No.11 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Gurumoorthi vs. Accountant General Assam and Nagaland & Others, reported in (1971) 2 SCC