Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 2105 of 2001
PETITIONER:
DELHI HIGH COURT & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ATUL KUMAR SHARMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/07/2001
BENCH:
S.RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
A writ petition bearing No. C.W.P.No. 1218/89 was filed in the High
Court by Atul Kumar Sharma calling in question the validity of the
amendment made to the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointments
and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972 to the extent it amended the Rules
excluding the Junior Translator from the feeder post for promotion to the
post of Assistants, Caretaker and Junior Reader. A Division Bench of the
High Court allowed the said writ petition holding that the High Court
should follow the rule which provided promotional avenues to the Junior
Translator also to the post of Assistants, Caretaker and Junior Reader.
The promotions were to be effected on the directions issued by the High
Court though monetary benefits were excluded in order to adjust the
equities in the matter.
The question was whether the respondent would get the notional
promotion to the post of Senior Translator and if so, whether the written
test for promotion to the post of Superintendent to be held on September
9, 2000 would come in the way of prospects of the respondent. A
Committee had been constituted to look into these matters to make
recommendations pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench in
C.W.P.No. 1218/89. A report had been received by the Chief Justice on
8.9.2000. Based on that report, provisional roll numbers were issued to
all Senior Judicial Translators/Judicial Translators who had applied for
appearing in the test for the post of Administrative Officer or Court
Master. The respondent, however, did not accept the roll number
assigned to him on the ground that there was hardly any time for
preparation for the examination and that the recommendations made by
the Administrative Committee of the Judges was also under challenge in
another writ petition [C.W.P.No.6167 of 2000]. In view of the pendency
of the writ petition, the Committee deferred finalization and fixation of
notional seniority in respect of the respondent and other similarly
situated persons.
An application [C.M.No.8257 of 2000] was filed in C.W.P.No.
1218/89 [which stood disposed of earlier] to direct a supplementary
examination to he held to the post of Administrative Officer or Court
Master on the ground that the respondent and others have not been
given sufficient time for preparation as it was only on 8.9.2000 that he
was informed that he has been allowed to appear in the test commencing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
on the very next day. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the
application filed by the respondent and directed holding of the
supplementary examination for the respondent and other similarly
situated persons.
In challenging this decision of the High Court, two contentions are
put forth on behalf of the appellants. Firstly that the High Court had
already disposed of C.W.P.No. 1218/89 and, therefore, in such a matter
a further application was not permissible. Secondly it is pointed out that
there is another writ petition [C.W.P.No. 6167 of 2000] which is pending
before the High Court challenging the recommendations made by the
Administrative Committee of the Judges which would make persons
situated as the respondent ineligible to take the examination for
Administrative Officer or Court Master. Reliance is placed on the
decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr.,
1987 (2) SCC 179, to contend that when proceedings stand terminated
by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the court to reopen the
proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a
matter which provided a fresh cause of action. The High Court
distinguished the said decision on principle and held that the respondent
is merely pursuing the relief granted in the earlier writ petition and not
seeking for any fresh relief on the basis of a new cause of action. His
contention has all along been that he is entitled to be promoted to the
post of Administrative Officer or Court Master and subsequently to
further higher posts. We do not know whether the writ petition
[C.W.P.No. 6167 of 2000] has been disposed of or not and in fact, the
outcome of that proceeding may or may not ultimately affect the rights of
the parties. All that is sought to be done now is to hold a supplementary
examination in respect of those candidates who had the benefit of the
judgment in C.W.P.No. 1218/89 pursuant to the recommendations made
by the Administrative Committee. Only when actual promotions are to
be effected the rights of the parties have to be taken into consideration.
The High Court directed holding of the supplementary examination only
in the context of time being too short between the date of making a note
to the concerned persons who were eligible to take the examination and
the date of the examination and that time being too short the High Court
felt that the supplementary examination should be held. When a very
limited relief has been granted, we do not think any grave injustice would
be caused to any party and, on the other hand, heart burn, if any, to
member of the staff would be assuaged. Hence, we do not think the
order of the High Court in appeal before us calls for interference.
This petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs.
.J.
[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]
...J.
[ K.G. BALAKRISHNAN ]
NEW DELHI,
JULY 20, 2001.
5
4