# Anoop Srivastava & Ors v. Registrar General High Court, Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 883
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57786 of 2012
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon, Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anoop-srivastava-ors-v-registrar-general-high-court-allahabad-ors-42998
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Yashwant Varma, Sri Ashish Mishra

Allahabad
High
Court
Bench
Secretaries(condition
of
service)
Rules
2005-as
amended
2012-Rule-6(i)-
Appointment
on
post
of
Bench
Secretaries
Grade
I-eligibility
for
appearing
in
examination-petitioner
working
as
Consol
operator-seeking
direction
to
participate
in
written
examination-held-except R.O. And A.R.O.
under rules framed by Hon'ble Chief
Justice-providing condition of appointmentincludes criteria for appointment-plea of
Art. 14 of constitution not available-channel
of promotion of Consol operator-to that
post of computer operator grade-C-than
programmer grade- 2 onwards-can not be
allowed to change their promotion zonepetition dismissed.

Held: Para-18 & 19

## Text

2 All]. Anoop Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Registrar General High Court, Allahabad & Ors.
883
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The
various proceedings provided under U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary
proceeding and require to be decided
expeditiously. Therefore writ petitions
arising out of the orders passed in the
proceedings U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 also require for speedy disposal.
With the object of speedy disposal,
notices
has
been
issued
to
the
respondents, pending admission so that
the writ petition can be decided at the
admission stage.

9. The objection raised by the
counsel for the petitioner is overruled.
List for admission in next cause list. On
that day writ petition be heard finally.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57786 of 2012

Anoop Srivastava & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Registrar General High Court, Allahabad
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.R. Mishra, Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Yashwant Varma, Sri Ashish Mishra

Allahabad
High
Court
Bench
Secretaries(condition
of
service)
Rules
2005-as
amended
2012-Rule-6(i)-
Appointment
on
post
of
Bench
Secretaries
Grade
I-eligibility
for
appearing
in
examination-petitioner
working
as
Consol
operator-seeking
direction
to
participate
in
written
examination-held-except R.O. And A.R.O.
under rules framed by Hon'ble Chief
Justice-providing condition of appointmentincludes criteria for appointment-plea of
Art. 14 of constitution not available-channel
of promotion of Consol operator-to that
post of computer operator grade-C-than
programmer grade- 2 onwards-can not be
allowed to change their promotion zonepetition dismissed.

Held: Para-18 & 19
18. So far as the submission of the
petitioners that they are possessed of
better
qualification
vis-a-vis
Review
Officer/Assistant
Review
Officer
is
concerned, we are of the opinion that the
submission of the petitioners has no
relevance having regard to the statutory
rules,
which
define
the
zone
of
consideration.

19. In the totality of the circumstances
on record, we find no good ground to
interfere either with the amended rules
or with the process of selection which
has been initiated for appointment as
Bench Secretary Grade-I.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 6 SCC 725.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K.
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel
for the respondent-High Court.

2. Petitioners, before this Court,
seek quashing of the notification dated
17th August, 2012, whereby Clause 6(i)
of the Allahabad High Court Bench
Secretaries (Condition of Service) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules, 2005") has been amended. They
also pray for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent-High Court to
permit the petitioners to appear in the
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competitive examination to be held for
promotion to the post of Bench Secretary
Grade-I in the establishment of the High
Court, Allahabad.

3. Petitioners, who are 9 in number,
were all recruited and appointed as Console
Operators-cum-Data Entry Assistants in the
year 2001 in the establishment of High
Court. They have been confirmed on the said
post under the order of the Joint Registrar
(Establishment) dated 1st June, 2009 with
effect from the dates mentioned in the order
against their names.

4. Sri H. R. Mishra, learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the post of
Bench Secretary Grade-I, the appointment
whereof is regulated by the Allahabad
High Court Officers and Staff (Condition
of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules,
1976"), was earlier filled after holding
selection
through
competitive
examination to be conducted by the
appointing authority from the Assistants
having not less than 10 years of
continuous service in Class-III posts.
Preference was to be given to candidates
possessing a Law Degree. He submits that
under the Rules, 1976, all Class-III
employees including the persons, who
were holding the post of Console
Operators-cum-Data Entry Assistants, like
the petitioners were permitted to appear in
the competitive examinations to be held
for appointment on the post of Bench
Secretary Grade-I. Reference is made to
paragraph-16 to the present writ petition.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that
by notification dated 17th August, 2012,
zone of eligibility of the candidates
eligible
to
sit
in
the
competitive
examination, has been curtailed by
providing that only Review Officer (for
short "RO"/Assistant Review Officer (for
short "ARO") having not less then 10
years of continuous service would be
entitled to participate in the competitive
examination, by making an amendment in
Rule-6 (i) of Rules, 2005. The eligibility
zone for appearing in the competitive
examination for appointment on the post
of Bench Secretary Grade-I has been
confined to RO/ARO only and as a result
whereof persons, like the petitioners stand
excluded
from
being
eligible
to
participate
in
the
competitive
examination. This amendment in rule 6(i)
of Rules, 2005 is arbitrary.

6. It is also stated that the petitioners
are working on Class III posts in the
establishment of the High Court and they
have 10 years of experience. If larger
number of persons participate in the
competitive
examinations,
it
would
always result in best possible candidates
being available for appointment on the
post of Bench Secretary Grade-I and
therefore, also the amendments in Rules,
2005 vide impugned notification dated
17th August, 2012, known as "The
Allahabad High Court Bench Secretaries
(Conditions of Service) (Amendment)
Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Rules, 2012"), virtually defeats the very
purpose of competitive examinations.

7. He further submits that there is
little or no reasonable classification for
not treating the petitioners, who are
holding
Class
III
Posts
in
the
establishment of the High Court, to be
eligible to appear in the competitive
examinations specifically with reference
to the objects sought to be achieved and
therefore, their exclusion is hit by Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
2 All]. Anoop Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Registrar General High Court, Allahabad & Ors.
885

8. It is further case of the petitioners
that they possess better qualifications visa-vis Assistant Review Officer/Review
officer, therefore, they may be permitted
to
participate
in
the
competitive
examination.

9. Lastly, it is contended that some
of the vacancies, which have been
advertised in respect of posts of Bench
Secretary Grade-I, are of the year prior to
2012 and therefore, Rules, 2012 will not
apply. The practice, which was being
followed by the High Court prior to the
amendments in Rules, 2005, should be
directed to be followed in respect of
vacancies of the earlier years.

10. Sri Ashish Mishra, learned
counsel for the respondent-High Court on
the contrary submits that petitioners were
never members of the cadre covered by
Rules, 1976. Their appointment was made
against the posts, which were created
outside the Rules, 1976. It is further stated
that in the year 2010, a separate cadre for
the employees like the petitioners, who
were working in the Computer Section of
the Allahabad High Court, has been
created by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice
in exercise of powers under Article 229
(2) of the Constitution of India, known as
"The Allahabad High Court Computer
Section Service Rules, 2010" (hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules, 2010") and that
the petitioners have been merged against
the cadre posts of Computer Operators
Grade-B. For the persons working in the
computer cadre, channel of promotion has
been provided as Computer Operator
Grade-C and thereafter as Programmer
Grade-2 onwards. Reference is made to
Rules 3 and 12 read with Schedule-I and
Schedule-II of Rules, 2010. He therefore,
submits that under the Rules, 2005, even
prior to its amendment in 2012, only
Assistants having ten years of continuous
service on Class III posts, were entitled to
participate
in
the
competitive
examinations to be held for the post of
Bench Secretary Grade-I. Petitioners do
not answer the description of Assistants.
Even if such Console Operators-cum-Data
Entry Assistants were earlier permitted to
appear in the competition, the same was
only a mistake, which need not be
repeated. Even otherwise, since now
different cadre has been provided for
Console
Operator-cum-Data
Entry
Assistants like the petitioners, they can
have no grievance in the matter of
appointment to be made on the post of
Bench
Secretary
Grade-I
nor
their
exclusion can be said to be arbitrary and
violative to Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.

11. Learned counsel for the High
Court points out that the year of vacancy
is wholly irrelevant, so far as the
recruitment on the post of Bench
Secretary Grade-I under Rules, 2005 is
concerned, inasmuch as the Rules do not
contemplate advertisement of vacancy
year-wise. The vacancies which have now
been advertised in the year 2013 have
necessarily to be filled in accordance with
amended Rules, 2012. Reference is made
to the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Deepak Agarwal & Another vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported
in (2011) 6 SCC 725, wherein it has been
held that there is no rule of universal or
absolute application that vacancies are to
be filled invariably by law existing on the
date when the vacancy arises. He further
submits that plea that in case, the
petitioners are permitted to participate in
the process of selections, large number of
candidates would become available for
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being considered and therefore, may
result in the best selection for the post of
Bench Secretary Grade-I is only an
argument of desperation. Petitioners do
not belong to the feeding cadre and
therefore, they have no right to participate
in the process of selection. He submits
that it is within the discretion of rule
framing authority to lay-down the zone of
consideration and once such prescription
has been made, the rule can only be
challenged on three grounds (a) rule is
contrary to the Parent Act, (b) rule framed
is not within the authority of the person
framing the rule, and (c) it violates any
fundamental right of the aggrieved
persons. First two grounds have not been
pressed. Plea of discrimination, as has
been canvassed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, is neither here nor there, in
view of the fact that a separate cadre and a
separate channel of promotion has been
provided for the persons working under
Rules, 2010 like the petitioners.

12. We have considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have examined the
records of the present writ petition.

13. It is not in dispute that so far as
the appointment on Class III posts in the
establishment
of
the
High
Court,
Allahabad is concerned, the same is
regulated by Rules, 1976. These Rules,
1976 provide for the cadre of Class III
posts and their method of recruitment.
Admittedly there exists no post of
Console
Operator-cum-Data
Entry
Assistant under Rules, 1976. It is the
employees,
who
were
working
as
Assistants referable to Rules, 1976 were
the feeding cadre for appointment as
Bench Secretary Grade-I under Rules,
2005.

14. We may record that the word
"Assistant" has not been defined under
Rules, 1976, even otherwise whatever
may have been the position with regard to
the employees working as Console
Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistant being
treated to be the Assistant working in
Class III, in the establishment of the High
Court or not prior to Rules, 2010, the
issue has crystallized with the framing of
the Rules, 2010, wherein all Console
Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants have
been designated as Computer Operators
Grade-B. Reference Rule-3, Rule-12 read
with Schedules-I and II of Rules, 2010.
Under Rule-12 of Rules, 2010 a different
channel of promotion/appointment on
higher posts in the said cadre has been
provided. So far as the persons like the
petitioners
are
concerned,
the
next
channel of promotion is to that of the post
of Computer Operator Grade-C and
thereafter to the post of Programmer
Grade-2 onwards. The Rule framing
authorities has further laid at rest the
doubts if any with regard to the persons
eligible to participate in the competitive
examinations to be held for the post of
Bench Secretary Grade-I by making
necessary amendments in Rules, 2006
known as Rules, 2012. The amendments
which have been made in the existing
Rule-6 (i) of the Allahabad High Court
Bench Secretaries (Condition of Service)
Rules, 2005 reads as under---

Rule -6

Particulars -Source of appointment to various
promotional posts. Appointment to the various
categories of promotional posts in the service shall
be made from the following sources, namely (i)
Bench Secretary Grade-1

Existing Rule- By selection through competitive
Examination to be conducted by the appointing
authority open to the Assistants having not less
2 All]. Sri Krishan Bhahauriya, Officer Assistant-III Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887
than ten years continuous service in Class III posts.
Preference shall however, be given to candidates
possessing a Law Degree

Rule as hereby amended:

By
selection
through
competitive
Examination to be conducted by the appointing
authority open to the Review Officer/Assistant
Review Officer having not less than ten years
continuous service. Preference shall however, be
given to candidates possessing a Law Degree

15. It is, therefore, clear that Rules,
2005 as amended in the year 2012 provide
for zone of eligibility for appearing in
competitive examination for the post of
Bench Secretary Grade-I as those working as
Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer.
The competence of the Hon'ble The Chief
Justice to frame rules under Article 229 of
the Constitution of India is not challenge.
The power to lay down service conditions
shall necessarily include the mode and
manner of recruitment to the post. The plea
of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India has only been stated to be rejected.
A

16. As noticed above, under Rules,
2010, a different channel of promotion has
been provided for the petitioners and
therefore, they cannot insist that merely
because they are drawing salary, which is
equivalent to the employees working as
Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer,
which is a Class III post, they should also be
held eligible to participate in the competitive
examination for the post of Bench Secretary
Grade-I against in respect of vacancies which
occurred prior to 2012.

17. The Apex Court in the case of
Deepak Agarwal (Supra) has held that
there is no rule of universal or absolute
application that vacancies are to be filled
invariably by law existing on the date
when the vacancy arises. The law so laid
down applies with full force in the facts of
the case, inasmuch as the Rules, 2005 do
not contemplate advertisement of the
vacancy year-wise nor any other rule in
that regard has been brought to our notice
by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

18. So far as the submission of the
petitioners that they are possessed of
better
qualification
vis-a-vis
Review
Officer/Assistant
Review
Officer
is
concerned, we are of the opinion that the
submission of the petitioners has no
relevance having regard to the statutory
rules,
which
define
the
zone
of
consideration.

19.

In
the
totality
of
the
circumstances on record, we find no good
ground to interfere either with the
amended rules or with the process of
selection which has been initiated for
appointment as Bench Secretary Grade-I.

20. The present writ petition lacks
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61020 of 2012

Sri Krishan Bhadauriya Office, AssistantIII ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brij Raj Singh, Sri S.R. Singh
Sri Devendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava