Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by Junior Personal Assistants (JPAs) employed under the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur challenging the requirement to pass an Efficiency Test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer, a Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar* and Kuldeep Mathur, JJ., allowed the petition to the extent that the 2020 batch is barred from competing for pre-2020 vacancies and the Efficiency Test results shall be published, and promotions must to be granted as per the prescribed method. The Court further held that government employees have no inherent right to promotion, but only the right to be considered under existing rules.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners, 10 Junior Personal Assistants employed under the Rajasthan High Court establishment at Jodhpur challenged a notice issued by the Registrar (Examination) on 01-05-2024, requiring them to appear in the Efficiency Test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer.
The petitioners contended that their promotion should be based on seniority rather than an Efficiency Test. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14-05-2024, allowed the promotion process to continue but restrained actual promotions without prior Court permission.
The petitioners argued that they had a legitimate expectation of promotion based on seniority since a similar exemption from the Efficiency Test was granted in 2020 for their batchmates. The petitioners had completed four years in service and sought promotion, emphasising that in 2020, 18 out of 21 sanctioned posts for Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer were filled without requiring the Efficiency Test. A recruitment exercise in 2015 resulted in the appointment of 92 Junior Personal Assistants, while another exercise in 2020 led to 51 more appointments.
The petitioners’ previous representation for exemption from the Efficiency Test in 2020 was considered, and 12 Junior Personal Assistants were promoted by relaxing the Rules. Despite their representation on 01-05-2024, seeking similar exemption, their request was rejected without any reason.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners claimed that their batchmates were promoted in 2020 without an Efficiency Test, so they should be granted the same benefit. It was contended that it was unfair to ask them to compete with Junior Personal Assistants appointed four years later. It was stated that while their batchmates, who were promoted in 2020, are now eligible for Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer promotions, the petitioners are still being asked to qualify an Efficiency Test for a lower-level promotion. It was contended that the past relaxation of rules set a precedent that should be followed in their case. It was argued that the rejection of their representation without assigning any reason amounts to an arbitrary action by the administration.
However, respondents contended that under Article 229 of the Constitution of India and Rule 30 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, the Chief Justice has the power to grant or deny exemptions. It was contended that the petitioners cannot claim relaxation as a matter of right. It was argued that the Efficiency Test ensures merit-based promotion, and the Chief Justice’s discretion ensures the efficient functioning of the High Court establishment. It was lastly contended that the exemptions in the past were granted under different circumstances, and the present scenario does not warrant a similar relaxation.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioners have a legitimate expectation of promotion without appearing for the Efficiency Test based on past exemptions?
-
Whether requiring the petitioners to take the Efficiency Test violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
-
Whether the Chief Justice’s discretion to relax rules can be claimed as a right by the petitioners?
Court’s Observation
The Court, vide an interim order 14-05-2024), allowed the High Court to proceed with the promotion process. The Court stated that participation in the Efficiency Test would not prejudice the petitioners’ rights in the ongoing case and prohibited actual promotion without prior permission from the Court.
Constitutional Authority of Chief Justice in High Court Administration
The Court noted that the authority of the Chief Justice of a High Court has a long-standing history, originating from the Charter of 1774, which established the Supreme Court of Calcutta. This was later replaced by High Courts under the High Courts Act, 1861. The Letters Patent, granted on 14-05-1862, and amended in 1919, vested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal with extensive administrative powers. These included appointing clerks and ministerial officers, deciding their salaries, and overseeing judicial administration. These powers were preserved under the Government of India Acts of 1915 and 1935 and continue under Chapter X of the Constitution of India.
The Court stated that Article 216 of the Constitution of India establishes that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and other judges, Article 229 grants the Chief Justice the authority to appoint officers and servants of the High Court, including rule-making power concerning their conditions of service and Article 235 distinguishes between the administration of the High Court (by the Chief Justice) and control over subordinate courts (by the High Court as an institution). The Court cited M. Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General Assam & Nagaland, (1971) 2 SCC 137, where the Supreme Court held that Article 229 grants the Chief Justice supreme authority over appointments and conditions of service for High Court officers and staff.
The Court stated that, as discussed above, the Chief Justice possesses absolute power to frame rules concerning the recruitment, appointment, and conditions of service of High Court staff. The Court noted that the efficiency test requirement was prescribed under the Staff Service Rules, which were lawfully created and approved by the Chief Justice. The Court asserted the petitioners failed to demonstrate why the Chief Justice should exercise discretionary power in their favor.
Requirement of the Efficiency Test
The Court noted that the Efficiency Test is part of the Staff Service Rules and a qualifying requirement, not a discretionary criterion. The Court noted that 2002 General Order issued by the Rajasthan High Court laid down a structured process for recruitment and promotion and the exemption granted in 2020 was a discretionary exercise and did not establish a legal precedent. The Court stated that though the petitioners benefited from a previous exemption but cannot claim parity with others who got promoted based on seniority-cum-merit.
“A government employee is appointed following the recruitment Rules and can only insist that the provisions in the recruitment Rules as to leave, salary, promotion, etc. should be followed and cannot make a grievance against the action of the respondents who intend to follow the Rules.”
The Court asserted that promotions in government service are governed by rules, and an employee cannot demand relaxation in rules as a matter of right. It was stated that since the petitioners had benefitted from the 2020 exemption, they could not claim discrimination. The Court held that promotion is not a right, but a consideration and that the Chief Justice’s discretion cannot be overridden.
“In service jurisprudence, the chances of promotion are not the conditions of service and are defeasible. A government employee cannot claim promotion as a matter of right and he can only be considered for promotion according to the extant Rules.”
Maintainability of writ of Mandamus
The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the Chief Justice for discretionary decisions. The Court relied on State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty, (1986) 4 SCC 632, and emphasised that mandamus applies only when a statutory duty is not discharged, not when discretion is exercised within jurisdiction; Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-Operative Society v. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145, where it was affirmed that writs of mandamus compel statutory duties but not discretionary actions and Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 20, where the Supreme Court established that mandamus requires a clear statutory right and duty.
Validity of a Joint/Common Efficiency Test
The Court noted that Rule 6 states that the number of vacancies as of April 1st each year must be determined separately, and vacancies from earlier years must be filled in first. The Court found that conducting a common Efficiency Test for JPAs appointed in different financial years without segregating vacancies was unfair.
The Court noted that Clause 15 prescribes a specific quota system for promotion, ensuring that (a) the first vacancy is filled based on seniority-cum-efficiency and (b) the second, third, and fourth vacancies are filled on a seniority-cum-merit basis. The Court held that JPAs from different recruitment years cannot compete for vacancies that arose before their appointment.
The Court noted that the petitioners (2016 batch) have a right to promotion against vacancies that occurred before 02-03-2020. The Court asserted that the High Court must first complete the Efficiency Test for the 2016 batch before considering JPAs from later years (2020). However, the Court did not invalidate past promotions, as no specific challenge was made against the promotions granted on 09-10-2020.
The Court held that conducting a joint Efficiency Test for different recruitment years was not illegal. However, the Court acknowledged that the High Court should ensure that vacancies are properly apportioned so that earlier batches get due consideration first.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that JPAs from the 2020 batch cannot be considered for vacancies that arose before 02-03-2020 and the Efficiency Test results should be published, and promotions should be conducted in accordance with the clarified rules. However, the Court did not disturb the past promotions.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and reinforced that administrative discretion, when exercised lawfully, is not subject to judicial interference.
[Twinkle Singh v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7829/2024, Decided on 03-03-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Counsel for the Petitioners
Ms. Abhilasha Bora with Ms. Khushbu Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
