Skip to content


Vijaychandra Vrajlal Ambani and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1980)2GLR419
AppellantVijaychandra Vrajlal Ambani and anr.
RespondentState of Gujarat and ors.
Excerpt:
- - 1 as well as respondent no. 5. the state of gujarat as well as the gujarat public service commission are also impleaded as parties respondents before us. in this view of the matter, the aforesaid rules clearly indicate, that before a person can be appointed as the registrar of the city civil court, he should be necessarily a member of the establishment of the city civil and sessions court, ahmedabad or he should be a member of the staff attached to the high court of gujarat or he should be a member of the junior branch of the subordinate judicial service. as stated above, in the instant case, the record of the present petition clearly reveals that respondent no. 3 as the registrar of the city civil and sessions court, ahmedabad, is illegal, bad in law and of no consequence......in the present petition affecting the selection and/or the appointment of the registrar of the city civil and sessions court, ahmedabad.2. in order to appreciate the point canvassed in the petition, a few relevant facts may be stated.3. the post of the registrar of the city civil and sessions court, ahmedabad, fell vacant on july 1, 1979. prior to that the gujarat public service commission invited the applications from the suitable candidates by its advertisement dated april 17, 1979, and the same was published in the gujarat government gazette dated may, 3, 1979. petitioner no. 1 as well as respondent no. 3 had applied for the said post. on july 23, 1979, petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 3 were interviewed by the gujarat public service commission at ahmedabad, and after their.....
Judgment:

A.N. Surti, J.

1. A question of considerable importance is raised in the present petition affecting the selection and/or the appointment of the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

2. In order to appreciate the point canvassed in the petition, a few relevant facts may be stated.

3. The post of the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, fell vacant on July 1, 1979. Prior to that the Gujarat Public Service Commission invited the applications from the suitable candidates by its advertisement dated April 17, 1979, and the same was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated May, 3, 1979. Petitioner No. 1 as well as respondent No. 3 had applied for the said post. On July 23, 1979, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 were interviewed by the Gujarat Public Service Commission at Ahmedabad, and after their interviews, the Secretary of the Gujarat Public Service Commission, Ahmedabad, put up a notice that respondent No. 3-Shri Arvindray Janakray Dave-was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for the post of Registrar, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. It is this selection, which was made by the Gujarat Public Service Commission was a subject matter of a serious challenge before us in coune of the hearing of the petition.

4. Petitioner No. 1 is holding degrees of B.A. of Bombay University and LL.B. of Gujarat University. At the relevant time, he was holding the post of Deputy Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

5. The State of Gujarat as well as the Gujarat Public Service Commission are also impleaded as parties respondents before us. At the relevant time, respondent No. 3 Shri Arvindray Janakray Dave, was holding the Post of Registrar, Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Ahmedabad, and as stated above, was selected for the post of the Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

6. The grievance on behalf of the petitioners was, that the said selection of respondent No. 3 is in violation of the Ahmedabad City Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to posts of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961. According to petitioners, the said Rules are having statutory force, and the said selection of respondent No. 3 is in violation of the said Rules having statutory force.

7. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides as follows:

Recruitment to posts of Registrar. Ahmedabad City Civil Court.-Appointment to the post of the Registrar, of the Ahmedabad City Court shall be made either;

(1) by promotion of a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, or

(2) by transfer of a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or a member of the Junior Branch of the Subordinate Judicial Service, or

(3) by nomination.

8. Rule 5 of the said Rules is in the following terms:

5. Qualifications for appointment by nomination. To be eligible for appointment as Registrar by nomination, a candidate must be a person, (i) who being a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, or a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or a member of the Junior Branch of the Subordinate Judicial Service has the qualifications required for appointment by promotions or transfer:

(ii) who on the date of appointment is not more than 45 years of age and....

9. At this stage, we may also usefully refer to Rule 6 which provides for recruitment to post of Deputy Registrar, Ahmedabad City Civil Court. It provides,

Appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court shall be made either:

(1) by promotion of a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, or

(2) by transfer of a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or any court subordinate thereto, or

(3) by nomination.

10. Having regard to the grievance made by the petitioners, it is not necessary for us to refer to the rest of the aforesaid Rules. Suffice it to say, that the appointment to the post of the Registrar of the City Civil Courts Ahmedabad, can only be made by promotion of the member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, or by transferring a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or if a person is a member to the junior branch of the subordinate judicial service.

11. In the present case, at the relevant time, it is clear to us, that respondent No. 3 was not a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. It is equally clear to us, that respondent No. 3 was not selected for the aforesaid post in pursuance to his transfer as provided by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. It may be equally emphasised, that respondent No. 3 was never a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat.

12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners was, that as respondent No. 3 was never a member of the junior branch of the subordinate judicial service, it was patently illegal for the Gujarat Public Service Commission to select him for the said post, and it would be equally illegal for the State to appoint him as the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

13. It may be significantly noticed, that Rule 6 provides inter alia, that the Deputy Registrar, Ahmedabad City Civil Court can also be appointed by transfer of a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or any court subordinate thereto. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid Rules clearly indicate, that before a person can be appointed as the Registrar of the City Civil Court, he should be necessarily a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad or he should be a member of the staff attached to the High Court of Gujarat or he should be a member of the junior branch of the subordinate judicial service. As stated above, in the instant case, the record of the present petition clearly reveals that respondent No. 3 was never a member of the establishment of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad at the relevant time. The record is also clear to come to a conclusion that he was not appointed as the Registrar of the City Civil Court on transfer as provided by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules.

14. Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate for the petitioners invited our attention to the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 as amended from time to time vide Annexure 'Y'. Rule 2(e) defines 'services':

(a) 'service' means the Gujarat Judicial Service.

3. Constitution of Service (1) The service shall consist of the Branches namely:

(a) Junior Branch, and

(b) Senior Branch.

(2) The Junior Branch shall consist of the following two chasses, namely (a) Class 1 comprising.

(i) Civil Judge (Senior Division); and

(ii) Judges of the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad and City Magistrates; (b) Class II; comprising Civil Judges (junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates of the first class.

(3) The Senior Branch shall consist of District Judges, the Principal Judge and the Judges of the Ahmedabad City Civil Court, the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, the Chief Magistrate, the Additional Chief Magistrate, Ahmedabad, and the Assistant Judge.

The rest of the aforesaid 1961 Rules need not be set out for the disposal of the present petition.

15. It was urged by Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate for the petitioners, that in the context of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961, we must read the Ahmedabad City Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to posts of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961. He strongly urged that in the context of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961, if we read the Ahmedabad City Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to posts of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961, we must necessarily reach to one conclusion, that unless a person is a member of the Junior Branch of the Subordinate judicial service, he can never be selected and appointed as the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. Mr. Mehta also urged, that in the instant case, respondent No. 3, at the relevant time, was never holding the post of a Civil Judge, (Senior Division) or the post of the Judge of the Small Causes Court at b or the City Magistrate's or the post of a Civil Judge, (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates of the first class. Under the circumstances Mr. Mehta urged before us that it was in clear and flagrant violation of the statutory rules viz. the Ahmedabad City Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to posts of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961 that respondent No. 3 was selected for the post of the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. It may be emphasised once again at this stage, that at the relevant time, the third respondent was holding the post of Registrar, Metropolitan Magistrates Courts at Ahmedabad. In view of what has been stated, Mr. Mehta's submission before us was, that the selection of respondent No. 3 for the post of Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad is patently illegal and was made in flagrant violation of the statutory rules.

16. Mr. P.M. Raval, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 vehemently resisted the petition. In substance, the submission of Mr. Raval was, that respondent No. 3 was a member of the subordinate judicial service and as such was legally entitled to be selected and appointed for the post of Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

17. In order to substantiate the point, Mr. Raval invited our attention to the Bombay Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1939 (vide Annexure '1' to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 3). Mr. Raval invited our attention to the Appendix B annexed with the said rules. Appendix 'B' to the said Rules provides inter alia as follows:

Subordinate Judicial Service.

(i) Executive Branch Registrar of the Small Causes Courts,

Poona and Ahmedabad.

(ii) Ministerial Branch Nazirs and Sheristedars,

Clerks of the Courts

Registrar, District Court, Ahmednager

Stenographers and Clerks

Bailiffs.

Book-binders,

(iii) Inferior Branch Chobdars, Peons and Petty Officers,

Liftmen, Hamals, Filers.'

18. The submission of Mr. Raval was that from 1939 Rules it must be inevitably inferred that, respondent No. 3 who was holding the post of the Registrar, Metropolitan Magistrates' Court, Ahmedabad was a member of the subordinate judicial services as provided in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Ahmedabad City Civil Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to posts of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961. This was the only submission urged by Mr. Raval in course of the hearing of the present petition.

19. Now it may be stated at this stage, that Appendix 'B' which provides for subordinate judicial services in 1939 rules was deleted in the year 1957. For this limited purpose, we had seen the Bombay Civil Services Classification and Recruitment Rules (vide Appendix 'D') which were published in the year 1957 (vide Bombay Government Gazette Part IV A 1957 page 104). It may be significantly emphasised once again, that Appendix 'B' annexed with the aforesaid 1939 Rules was deleted in the year 1957 with the result that when the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1961 were published on the statute book, the concept of subordinate judicial service as mentioned in 1939 Rules never existed and was non est. In this view of the matter, their is no tittle of merit or any substance in the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Raval that respondent No. 3 was a member of the subordinate judicial service when he was selected for the post of the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

20. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we are convinced that the selection made by the Gujarat Public Service Commission in pursuance to their notice dated July 16, 1979 (Annexure 'C' to the petition) selecting respondent No. 3 as the Registrar of the City Civil Court is in flagrant violation of the Ahmedabad City Courts (Classification of and Recruitment to the post of Registrars and Deputy Registrars) Rules, 1961.

21. No other submission was made by Mr. Raval in course of the hearing of the present petition.

22. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The selection made by the Gujarat Public Service Commission selecting respondent No. 3 for the post of Registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside; and it is declared that the said selection of respondent No. 3 as the Registrar of the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, is illegal, bad in law and of no consequence.

Accordingly, the petition succeeds, and the rule is made absolute, but having regard the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //