Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged the promotion of respondent no.2 as Chief Translator and Interpreter. Petitioner Maroti, the sole Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter at the Nagpur Bench, was interviewed but not selected. He contended that under Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, he was the only eligible candidate, and respondent no.2 was unqualified. Petitioner also alleged that Rule 58, allowing the Chief Justice to override rules and relax qualifications, was arbitrary. The High Court examined the rules and found that due to petitioner’s unsuitability, the administration invoked Rule 58(b) to relax qualifications, call other translators, and select respondent no.2, a law degree holder found suitable. The Court held that Rule 58 is essential for exigencies and not arbitrary; the Chief Justice’s power to ensure smooth administration justified the relaxation. The petition was dismissed, upholding the appointment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment and Promotion - Relaxation of Eligibility Criteria - Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, Rules 10, 58 - The sole Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter was found unsuitable for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter - The Chief Justice invoked overriding power under Rule 58(b) to relax qualifications, allowing other translators including respondent no.2 to be considered - Held that such relaxation is permissible and does not render Rule 58 arbitrary; appointment of respondent no.2 was valid (Paras 12-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of respondent no.2 as Chief Translator and Interpreter was illegal and whether Rule 58 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 is arbitrary.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. The court held invocation of Rule 58(b) to relax qualifications not illegal; Rule 58 not arbitrary; appointment of respondent no.2 valid. No costs.
Law Points
- Rule 10 of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules
- 2000 provides eligibility for Chief Translator and Interpreter
- Rule 58(b) allows Chief Justice to relax qualifications
- overriding power valid for smooth administration
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (09) 85
WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 OF 2004
B.P. Dharmadhikari, M.G. Giratkar
V.G. Bhamburkar, A.S. Jaiswal, Ms. Radhika Bajaj, N.C. Phadnis
Maroti s/o Bhauraoji Chandankhede
1. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 2. Kishore S. Behere
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging appointment/promotion of respondent no.2 to the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of respondent no.2's appointment and declaration that Rule 58 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
Filing Reason
Petitioner, the only Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter at Nagpur Bench, was not selected despite being sole eligible candidate; respondent no.2, not qualified under Rule 10, was appointed after relaxation of rules.
Issues
Whether the appointment of respondent no.2 as Chief Translator and Interpreter was illegal for violation of Rule 10 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000.
Whether Rule 58 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000, conferring overriding powers on the Chief Justice, is arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Under Rule 10, only Deputy Chief Translators/Assistant Translators with experience are eligible; petitioner only one. Respondent no.2 not qualified; appointment by relaxing rules is illegal favoritism. Rule 58 is arbitrary giving unbridled discretion. Smt. Andhare scored higher but respondent no.2 selected.
Respondent No.1: Petitioner was interviewed but found not suitable. Rule 58(b) permits Chief Justice to relax qualifications; invoked due to exigency to fill post with suitable candidate. Rule 58 is essential for smooth administration and not arbitrary. Respondent no.2 found suitable and appointed.
Ratio Decidendi
Where sole candidate eligible under recruitment rules is found unsuitable, the appointing authority may invoke overriding power to relax qualifications, and such relaxation does not render the rule arbitrary if it serves the purpose of smooth administration. Rule 58(b) of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000 is intra vires and not arbitrary.
Judgment Excerpts
As per Rule 10 of the above said Rules, there is no dispute that only Deputy Chief Translator and Interpreter and Assistant Translators are eligible for the post of Chief Translator and Interpreter.
As per Rule 58[b], the Hon'ble Chief Justice can make relaxation in respect of any qualification for any post.
Rule 58 is the only rule for smooth running of administration of High Court in case of exigencies.
We do not find any merit in the Petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Procedural History
Writ petition filed in 2004 challenging appointment of respondent no.2. After hearing parties, the High Court delivered oral judgment on 10 September 2018 dismissing the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay High Court Appellate Side Service Rules, 2000: Rule 10, Rule 58, Rule 58(a), Rule 58(b)
