Promotion To HC's Assistant Registrar Based On Merit, Seniority Of Candidates Can't Be Sole Criteria: Rajasthan High Court
In a plea filed by four Court Masters challenging seniority list of Assistant Registrars claiming that despite being senior they had been put below Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the seniority list and were denied promotion, the Rajasthan High Court observed that criteria for promotion to the post is based on merit. The petitioners were promoted as Court Masters on 26.09.2015 in...
In a plea filed by four Court Masters challenging seniority list of Assistant Registrars claiming that despite being senior they had been put below Administrative Officers (Judicial) in the seniority list and were denied promotion, the Rajasthan High Court observed that criteria for promotion to the post is based on merit.
The petitioners were promoted as Court Masters on 26.09.2015 in respect of vacancies in 2013-14. The respondents were promoted on 12.03.2015, to the post of Administrative Officer Judicial (AOJ) against the vacancies of 2014-15. The Court Master and AOJ are the feeder cadre for the post of Assistant Registrar.
The petitioners and respondents were promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar (AR) on 18.01.2021. The provisional seniority list of Assistant Registrars was circulated on 13.09.2021, and the petitioners were placed below the respondents. The petitioners contended that they as Court Master were senior to the respondents having been promoted against the vacancies of 2013-14 and hence seniority should have been maintained for the post of AR.
The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal referred to Clause 12 of a December 5, 2002 issued in pursuance to Rules 4, 5, and 7 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules 2002 and observed that the language of the order was clear that the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar shall be based on merit.
Clause 12 (Assistant Registrars/Court Officers) states that "Recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar/Court Officer shall be made by promotion on the recommendation of a Committee nominated by the Appointing Authority adjudging suitability of the candidates on the criteria of merit from amongst the Administrative Officer Judicial, Guest House Manager Grade-I, Assistant Accounts Officers, Chief Accountant-cum Administrative Officer Judicial and Court Masters".
The court thereafter said:
"The admitted facts are that the petitioners and the respondents were Court Masters and AOJs respectively; both the posts had different seniority lists and both the posts are feeder cadre for promotion to the post of AR. The petitioners were notionally promoted to the post of Court Masters against the vacancies of 2013-14 and the respondents were promoted against the vacancies of 2014-15, albeit, the promotion of the respondents was prior in time. The language of Clause 12 of Order of 2002 is clear and unambiguous that criteria for promotion to the post of AR shall be merit. In other words, the seniority of post of Court Master and AOJ cannot be sole criteria for promotion as per Clause 12 of Order of 2002".
It was argued by the petitioners that since the petitioners were promoted against vacancies of 2013-14, they were senior than the respondents, and such seniority should have been maintained for the post of Assistant Registrar.
On the contrary, the counsel for the High Court relied upon Clause 12 of the Order, and argued that the criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was merit. The committee recommended the candidates amongst the Court Masters, AOJs, and other eligible candidates after adjudging their suitability.
After hearing the contentions, the Court perused the records, and agreed with the argument put forth by the counsel for the High Court, and held that Clause 12 of the Order was clear that criteria for promotion to AR shall be merit. The seniority of the post of CMs and AOJs could not be the sole criteria for such promotion.
It was further held that, “Reliance placed on proviso (iii) of Rule 20 by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misplaced. The proviso deals with selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and seniority-cum-efficiency, where as the criteria for promotion under Clause 12 of Order of 2002 is merit”.
Accordingly, it was held that no interference was needed in the seniority list
With respect to the petitioners' grievance that during the pendency of their plea their objections to the provisional seniority list was communicated and the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to raise grievance against the determination of merit of the candidates, the court granted the petitioners liberty to file representation before High Court for redressal of surviving grievance.
"In the eventuality of such a representation being made, the same shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order," it added.
The plea was disposed of.
Title: Anand Prakash Agarwal & Ors. v The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 244