Respondent number 1, Hotilal Gupta challenged the companyrect ness of the view taken by the learned Judge on the Adminis trative side by filing a writ petition being C.W. No.
accepted the appeal of the appellant and set aside the appointment of respondent number 1.
By an order dated 7th August, 198 1, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petition, quashed the order dated 7th August, 1974, passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi appoint ing respondent number 1 to the said post.
Respondent number 1, Hotilal Gupta, claimed the said post on the basis of his seniority.
1003 of 1974 in the Delhi High Court.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.198 1 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and held that number only initial appointments but also ap pointments by promotion were to be made by the Judge, Small Causes Court and number by the District Sessions Judge, and that the rule of rotation was number applicable.
The aggrieved parties filed an Administrative Appeal before the District Sessions Judge, Delhi who passed his order dated July 17, 1973 and held that the rule of rotation did number apply to the establishment of the Judge, Small Causes Court.
The Appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was heard by a Single Judge on the Administrative side of the High Court.
1 as Upper Division Clerk.
He took the view that the promotion in question companyld be made by the District Sessions Judge, and should be in accordance with the rule of rotation.
1 challenged the said decision by way of a Writ Petition.
The appellant, Chander Bhan, made his claim on the footing that he was a graduate and on the basis of the rule of rotation as embodied in Rule VI in Chapter XVIII A of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volume I referred to more particularly hereinafter.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a departmental appeal against the said order to the High Court of Delhi which was heard by a learned Judge on the Administrative Side of that Court who, by his order dated August 7.
Against the High Courts decision, the appellant has preferred this appeal companytending that the promotion in question companyld only be made by the District Sessions Judge and that the rule of rotation was applicable even to the appointment by promotion.
applicable to the establishment of Judge, Small Causes Court, and appointed Respondent No.
1, 5, 6 7 asserted their claim to the said post.
9 whereas that of the appellant appears at Serial No.
140F G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD 1.
He took the view that promotion in the office of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi companyld only be made by the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi and that the vacancy should be filled in accordance with rule VI of the Rules framed by the erstwhile Punjab High Court, under section 35 3 of the punjab Courts Act, 1918, for subordinate services attached to Civil Courts other than the High Court hereinafter referred to as the said rules .
592 of 1982.
Respondent No.
He held that respondent number 1 being the senior most official as Lower Division Clerk was entitled to the post of Upper Division Clerk and accordingly appointed respondent number 1 as Upper Division Clerk against the said vacancy.
1003 of 1974.
Prithvi Raj and T.C. Sharma for the Appellant.
Dr. Arun Kumar and V.B. Saharya for the Respondents.
130 300 old Scale Rs.75 5 125 , one post of Upper Division Clerk U.D.C. English Clerk fell vacant in the office of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. On the retirement of one Jagan Nath Kohli, who was holding the post of Clerk of Court Upper Division Clerk in the grade of Rs.
Five officials of that companyrt, namely, the appellant and respondents number.
