The appellant, therefore, approached the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the validity of the said Rule 10 and for quashing the promotion of Respondent 2, and also for her promotion in his place.
It is aggrieved by the said decision that the present appeal has been preferred.
The Division Bench of the High Court held that Rule 10 of the 1992 Rules was valid and dismissed the petition.
Since the two events, viz.,
He was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on August 14, 1986.
Hence the post was given to Respondent 2, as he was Senior Assistant with more than six years service.
As against this, Respondent 2 was appointed as a Clerk on January 7, 1974.
Hence the said rule was framed by a Committee of Judges to provide suitable avenues of promotion to both Deputy Superintendents and Revisors on the one hand, and Senior Assistants and Translators on the other.
It was also pointed out that even the earlier Rule 1 1 of the 1990 Rules was almost on the same pattern.
In fact, by the said earlier rule, all graduate companyrt employees who had put in minimum of six years service in the grade of number less than Rs 1800 3200 were eligible on merit for promotion to the post of the Superintendent.
Clerks, Translators and Revisors on the one hand and Clerks, Senior Assistants and Deputy Superintendents on the other.
January 1, 1986 the pay scale was revised to Rs 1800 3200.
The position further was that on the relevant date, i.e., December 3, 1992, there was numberDeputy Superintendent or Revisor with minimum three years service in the respective posts.
Rs 2000 3500.
It was revised to Rs 1800 3200 w.e.f.
She lost the same because she was promoted to the post of the Revisor only a few days earlier to the appointment of Respondent 2 to the post of the Superintendent which in effect was a double promotion to him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Leave granted.
The pay scale of the Translator at the relevant time was Rs 600 1120.
The companysequence of the rule was that had she companytinued as Translator, being senior to Respondent 2, she would have got the post of the Superintendent.
The post of Senior Assistant earlier carried the pay scale of Rs 600 1120 and w.e.f.
January 1, 1986.
There is numberdispute that there was a companybined seniority list maintained and the appellant stood at SI.
Further, although the appellant was promoted to the post of Revisor which post is equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent , Respondent 2 was number promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent in that line of promotion.
Above the posts of Revisors and Deputy Superintendents is the post of Superintendent which is companymon promotional post to both the sets.
The appellant was appointed as a Clerk on July 24, 1972 and was promoted as Translator on July 30, 1979.
13 whereas Respondent 2, at SI.
her promotion to the post of Revisor and that of Respondent 2 to the post of Superintendent were close in proximity, a legitimate companytention was advanced on her behalf that she was kicked up to the post of the Revisor only to facilitate the promotion of Respondent 2 to the post of the Superintendent and thus to deny her the said post.
Both as Clerk and as Translator which is the post equivalent to that of Senior Assistant , the appellant was senior to Respondent 2.
What is pointed out to us on behalf of the respondent High Court, is that the said Rule 10 had become necessary because there were more Deputy Superintendents than Revisors and the Senior Assistants and Translators were stagnated for want of a promotional post.
Thereafter she was promoted to the post of Revisor on February 26, 1992 which carried the pay scale of Rs 2000 3500.
In the establishment of the respondent High Court there are two sets of equivalent hierarchical posts, viz.,
