9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 regarding the enforcement date of Rules 16 and 30, specifically in relation to the quota for filling posts of Assistants and determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Rules were made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, with financial implications referred to the Central Government for approval. The controversy arose regarding the enforcement date of Rules 16 and 30, as they did not involve financial implications. The High Court's decision led to dissatisfaction, resulting in Civil Appeals by promotees and direct recruits against the judgment. 2. The Rules specified a quota for filling Assistant posts and determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees. The date of enforcement is crucial due to the abolition of the quota on January 20, 1978. The High Court's interpretation, based on a previous case, led to conflicting views between direct recruits and promotees. 3. The Supreme Court analyzed Article 229 of the Constitution, emphasizing that rules requiring approval pertain only to salaries, allowances, leave, or pensions. The proviso under Article 229(2) mandates approval for rules related to financial matters, not all conditions of service. A strict construction of the proviso was highlighted to prevent expanding its scope beyond the specified areas. 4. The Court clarified that the Chief Justice could frame separate rules for financial matters and other conditions of service. Approval is necessary only for rules concerning financial implications, while others can be enforced directly. The enforcement date of Rules 16 and 30 was deemed to be March 1, 1974, as per the Chief Justice's order, except for rules specifically requiring approval. 5. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, directing the High Court to calculate vacancies for direct recruits and promotees based on the correct enforcement date of Rules 16 and 30. Consequential adjustments in the cadre of assistants were mandated to align with the correct enforcement date. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment's key issues, interpretations, and the Supreme Court's decision, ensuring clarity on the enforcement date of specific rules and its implications on recruitment and seniority within the High Court.
|
