TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (1) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in that behalf made Rules known as Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952 (hereinafter called and referred to as "the Rules"). 3. The Rules came into force on or about 1st October, 1952 Chapter 3 of the Rules refers to Administrative Business of the High Court. 4. The Rules of the High Court were amended by a Resolution of the Full Court of the High Court on 26.11.1966 and the relevant portion of the Minutes thereof are as under:- "Minutes of the proceedings of the Full Court Meeting held on Saturday, the 26th November, 1966, at 11 A.M. in the Chamber of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. *** AGENDA I. Amendment in the High Court Rules relating to the Administrative Business of the Court. II. Any other matter which Hon'ble the Chief Justice may like to be discussed. DECISIONS: ITEM NO. II:- The amendments proposed by the Hon'ble Administrative Judge in Chapter III of the High Court Rules relating to the administrative and executive business of the Court were considered. Resolved that in exercise of the powers conferre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Administrative Committee shall be consulted on the following matters, namely:-- (a) the issue of general letters to subordinate courts; (b) the issue of directions regarding the preparation of returns and statements; and (c) any other matter which the Chief Justice or the Administrative Judge may desire to be brought before it. 18. Consultation how made.--The consultation with the Judges and the Administrative Committee, referred to in Rule 15 and 17 respectively shall be made either by circulating the papers connected with the matter among the Judges or the Administrative Committee as the case may be or by laying the matter before a meeting of the Judges or the Administrative Committee called by the Chief Justice. 19. Decision in case difference of opinion.-- All the matters referred to in Rules 15 and 17 shall be disposed of in accordance with the views of the majority and in case the Judges, including the Chief Justice are equally divided in accordance with the views of the Chief Justice. 20. Administrative business to be disposed of by the Chief Justice.--Subject to Rules 15 and 17, the administrative business referred t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which reads as under:-- "Appointments to posts in the Selection Grade:- Appointments to the posts in the Selection grade of the service shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the Court on the basis of merit." 6. On or about 30th of April, 1990 a Committee of two Hon'ble Judges of the said Court was constituted by the Full Court for the purpose of consideration of individual merit of the judicial officers of Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service (RHJS) relating to appointment to selection scale. Pursuant to or in furtherance thereof a Committee of two Judges considered the same and suggested that last five years of ACRs to be considered in the merit criteria therefore. However, the Full Court by Resolution dated 5th October, 1990 took a decision to take into consideration three good ACRs out of five ACRs only for the said purpose. As regards grant of super time scale to Rajasthan Judicial Service the Full Court of the High Court by a Resolution dated 14.8.1997 adopted the criteria of five good ACRs out of seven ACRs for grant of supertime scale. 7. The Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, however, constituted a Committee consisting of two Judges of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judges of the High Court have not been consulted, the Committee appointed by the Acting Chief Justice alone could not evolve the merit criteria in view of Sub-rule (h) of Rule 15 of 1952 Rules. (3) The earlier policy decision adopted by the Full Court could not be changed as Rule 15 of 1952 provides for prior consultation of the Judges of the High Court and as all Judges were not consulted in the matter subsequent approval thereof could not cure illegality. 11. The said writ petitions were disposed of with the following directions:- (i) We direct the respondents to consider the cases of all the three petitioners afresh against the vacancies occasioned in 1998 and 1999 in view of the merit criterion evolved and approved by the Full Court in the year 1990 and 1994. If they are found eligible for promotion to selection scale of the RHJS, they can be accorded the selection scale by creating supernumerary posts in terms of Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. (ii) This decision shall not affect the order dated February 5, 2000 whereby selection scale of the RHJS was granted to twenty six officers. (iii) The fresh consideration as directed above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to act on his behalf in view of the interpretation clause contained in Section 3, Chapter III of the Rules provides for administrative business of the Court. In terms of Rule 14 of the Rules, Administrative Business of the Court relating to control over subordinate courts vested either under Article 235 or 227 of the Constitution of India were to be disposed of as provided therein. 15. The Rules have been made by the High Court. The High Court, therefore, can also amend the rules. It is not the case of the writ petitioners-First respondents herein that the High Court had no jurisdiction to evolve the criteria for grant of selection scale to the officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service or Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service. It may be true that by reason of Resolution dated 5th October, 1990 the Full Court inter alia opined that for the purpose of grant of selection scale three good ACRs out of five ACRs were to be taken into consideration but the said decision of the Full Court was subject to amendment modification thereof. 16. A reading of the aforementioned rules clearly goes to show that the Chief Justice has the requisite jurisdiction to constitute a Committee and the rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the committee by the Chief Justice having been made in terms of the rules must be held to have been made by the High Court itself. Such authorization is not a limited one as thereby the extent to which such authorization an be exercised has not been spelt out. Furthermore, authorization in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules having been laid down in Chapter II which relates to the Administrative Business of the Court, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever even in the matter of control of the High Court in terms of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court had the jurisdiction to exercise the said power. 20. Once such a resolution authorising the Chief Justice to constitute a committee has been passed having regard to the decision of this Court in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil [1997]3SCR1131 , there cannot be doubt whatsoever that the exercise of power by the Chief Justice in that behalf was absolutely valid. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the Chief Justice could appoint the two-Judges committee only with the approval of the Full Court. 21. Exercise of power by the Chief Justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired to be circulated to all the Judges. In the event, however, such consultation is to be effected by placing the matter before a Full Court all the Judges are therefore invited but the same would not mean that in the event, one or more Judge(s) does do not attend the Full Court, the resolution passed by it shall be invalid. Rule 29 provides for a quorum. In the case of a meeting of the Judges of the court, the quorum will be complete if one-half or more of the Judges attend the same. Consultation with all the Judges would, thus, not mean that even if some of the Judges do not choose to make themselves available in a Full Court Meeting, consultation with all the Judges shall not be complete. 29. We may notice that even in the Full Court meeting held on 26th November, 1966 all the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court were not present. 30. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of considering the cases of concerned officers. It is not and cannot be the case or the contention of the writ petitions that even for the purpose of considering the case of the eligible judicial officers at the threshold, it was absolutely necessary to place the matter before the Full Court. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, recommendations for imposition of major penalties which fall within Article 311, entries in character rolls and so forth. If every Judge is to be associated personally and directly with the decision on every one of these mattes, several important matters pertaining to the High Court's administrative affairs will pile into arrears like court arrears. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the control will be better and more effectively exercised if a smaller committee of Judges has the authority of the court to consider the manifold matters falling within the purview of Article 235. Bearing in mind therefore the nature of the power which that article confers on the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is wrong to characterize as 'delegation' the process whereby the entire High Court authorises a Judge or some of the Judges of the Court to act on behalf of the whole Court. Such an authorization effectuates the purpose of Article 235 and indeed without it the control vested in the High Court over the subordinate courts will tend gradually to become lax and ineffective. Administrative functions are only a part, though an important part of the High Court's co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the High Court. We fail to understand why the Chief Justice cannot appoint a Review Committee or an Administrative Committee. But in one respect the High Court is, in our opinion correct, namely, that the decision of the Review Committee should have been placed before a meeting of the judges. In the case of the respondent, K. Rajeswaran, the decision and recommendation of the Review Committee was not placed before the Full Court Meeting. Nor is there any material to show that the same was circulated to the judges. In that sense, the recommendation of the Review Committee was not strictly legal." 36. Furthermore, the terminology 'consultation' used in Rule 15 having regard to purport and object thereof must be given its ordinary meaning. In Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition, 1960, Volume 9, page 3) to 'consult' is defined as 'to discuss something together, to deliberate'. Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 16A, Ed. 1956, page 1242) also says that the word 'consult' is frequently defined as meaning to discuss something together, or to deliberate. By giving an opportunity to consultation or deliberation the purpose thereof is to enable the Jud....