Kiran Raj

The Rajasthan High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur, has partially allowed a petition challenging the requirement of an efficiency test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer. The court held that Junior Personal Assistants (JPAs) appointed in different recruitment years cannot compete for promotions against vacancies that arose before their appointment. It directed that promotions be granted in accordance with the established criteria, ensuring fair opportunities for eligible candidates.

The petition was filed by ten Junior Personal Assistants employed under the Rajasthan High Court establishment in Jodhpur. They challenged a notice dated May 1, 2024, issued by the Registrar (Examination), which required them to appear in an efficiency test for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer. The petitioners argued that promotions should be based on seniority, as was done in 2020 when a batch of JPAs was promoted without undergoing an efficiency test.

Also Read: "Prosecution Failed to Prove Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case

The recruitment process for Junior Personal Assistants in Rajasthan High Court took place in 2016 and 2020. The petitioners, who were appointed in 2016, contended that they had completed the required four years of service and were entitled to promotion based on seniority. They submitted that an efficiency test was not a consistent requirement, citing instances where previous promotions were granted without it.

The respondents, including the Rajasthan High Court administration, argued that the efficiency test was an essential qualification under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. They contended that the Chief Justice holds discretionary power under Article 229 of the Constitution of India to prescribe service conditions, including relaxation of rules in exceptional cases. The respondents maintained that previous exemptions from the efficiency test were not binding and could not be claimed as a matter of right.

The High Court examined the legal framework governing promotions, particularly the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002. It noted that under Clause 15 of the rules, 25% of the posts of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer are to be filled based on seniority-cum-efficiency, requiring an efficiency test, while 75% are filled based on seniority-cum-merit. The court observed:

"The scheme of promotion under Clause 15 does not contemplate permitting Junior Personal Assistants recruited in two different recruitment years to appear together in the Efficiency Test vying for promotion against the vacancies which occurred even prior to their appointment."

The court found that the efficiency test was a qualifying requirement intended to assess shorthand and transcription speed. It recorded:

"Holding of a common Efficiency Test without segregating the vacancies available for the appointees of different financial years would be unfair, improper and shall cause prejudice to the candidates like the petitioners."

Addressing the petitioners' claim of discrimination, the court noted that the previous exemption granted in 2020 was an exceptional measure. It held that relaxation in recruitment and promotion rules is within the Chief Justice’s discretion but cannot be claimed as a vested right. The court stated:

"It would be highly improper if the High Court issues a direction to the Chief Justice of the High Court to exercise his discretionary powers to relax the Rules and exempt the petitioners from Efficiency Test."

The court also examined the importance of efficiency tests in judicial administration, stating:

"The requirement of 'seniority-cum-efficiency’ is to promote talent, which is also in the best interest of the system, especially owing to the nature of their posts."

The High Court partially allowed the petition, directing that promotions be granted strictly as per Clause 15 of the Staff Service Rules. It held that Junior Personal Assistants appointed in 2020 or later cannot compete with the 2016 batch for vacancies that arose before March 2, 2020. It stated:

"We therefore hold that the Junior Personal Assistants appointed in the year 2020 or thereafter cannot seek promotion to the post of the Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer competing with the batch of 2016 against the vacancies that occurred prior to 02nd March 2020."

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Sexual Offense Case, Directs Accused to Marry Victim Within Three Months

The court further directed the respondents to publish the efficiency test results and grant promotions accordingly:

"The respondents shall now publish the result and promotions shall be granted only in the manner as indicated hereinabove."

The petition was allowed to the extent that the efficiency test results must be assessed separately for each recruitment batch.

Advocates Representing the Parties

• For the Petitioners: Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Advocate

• For the Respondents: Ms. Abhilasha Bora and Ms. Khushbu Choudhary, Advocates

Case Title: Twinkle Singh & Ors. v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:37396-DB
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7829/2024
Bench: Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Kuldeep Mathur

[Read/Download order]