Court upholds appointments to Assistant Registrar & Secretary roles, rejects challenges on Constitution grounds.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging appointments to the posts of Assistant Registrar and Secretary to the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. It upheld the Chief Justice's discretion in appointments, finding no arbitrariness or mala fide intent. The court held that the appointments complied with the Constitution and relevant rules, rejecting claims of violation of Articles 14 and 16. The petitions were dismissed due to significant delay in filing and the absence of merit in the petitioners' arguments, with costs imposed on the petitioners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of claims for promotion.
2. Alleged arbitrariness and mala fide in appointments.
3. Compliance with the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules.
4. Validity of Rule 10 under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability, delay, and scandalous allegations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Claims for Promotion:
The petitioners, staff members of the Rajasthan High Court, contended that their claims for promotion to the posts of Assistant Registrar and Secretary to the Chief Justice were not properly considered. They alleged that juniors were promoted over them without a proper selection process. The court noted that the Chief Justice, as the appointing authority under Article 229(1) of the Constitution, has the discretion to make appointments based on integrity and impartiality, irrespective of seniority.

2. Alleged Arbitrariness and Mala Fide in Appointments:
The petitioners argued that the appointments were arbitrary and made without following any procedure. The court found that the Chief Justice had exercised his discretion in good faith, based on recommendations from the Registrar. The appointments were made after considering the cases of several candidates, and the Chief Justice's discretion in such matters is protected to ensure judicial independence.

3. Compliance with the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules:
The petitioners claimed the appointments violated the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, particularly Rule 10. The court observed that the appointments were made under Article 229(1) of the Constitution, which grants the Chief Justice unfettered power in such matters. The rules did not mandate a specific procedure that had to be followed, and the Chief Justice's discretion was found to be properly exercised.

4. Validity of Rule 10 under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The petitioners challenged Rule 10 as ultra vires, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The court held that Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity but does not mandate a specific procedure for appointments. The Chief Justice's discretion, as exercised, did not violate these constitutional provisions.

5. Preliminary Objections:
- Maintainability: Respondent No. 5 argued that a writ against the Chief Justice's administrative action was not maintainable. The court did not decide this point but suggested that a writ might be issued if a fundamental right was breached.
- Delay: The court found substantial delay in filing the petitions, as the appointments were made in April 1961, and the petitions were filed in July 1962. The delay was not justified by the petitioners' representations, leading to the dismissal of the petitions on this ground.
- Scandalous Allegations: The petitioners initially made scandalous allegations against the then Chief Justice, which were later withdrawn. The court expressed strong disapproval of this conduct but did not dismiss the petitions solely on this ground.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' arguments and noting the significant delay in filing the petitions. The Chief Justice's discretion in making the appointments was upheld, and the rules and constitutional provisions were found to be properly applied. The petitioners were ordered to bear the costs.

---