- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1158 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. LATHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O RAMEGOWDA B N., 2. PADMA T., W/O NAGARAJA H.M., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. RAGHAVENDRA B.S., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O B.M. SHANKAR, 4. SHYAMALA N., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O S RAMAMOHAN, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 5. GAYATHRI S., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O S.V. RAMGOPAL, 6. HEMALATHA R B., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O LATE BASANAGOUDA, 7. K.R. GANGADARAIAH, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, 8. DHANA LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O PRAKASH, 9. SAVITHA DEVI T.E., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O MAILARAPPA K SHAVI, 10. NATARAJA S.N., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGARAJ, 11. J. AROKIANATHAN AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, 12. GIRIDHARA M., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O MANJUNATHA 13. MANJUNATHA Y.H., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE K HUCHEGOWDA, 14. R. SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O RAMAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 15. FAKIRAPPA SALI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAPPA SALI, 16. DEVIRI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O NAGARAJ S, 17. N. NAGASHREE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O BHARATHKUMAR S., 18. SIDDANAGOWDA N.A., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O A NAGESHAPPA, 19. N. SUKANAYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O K. RAMU, 20. RAMESH K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, 21. KARUNAKARA K.S., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SANJEEVA BHANDARI, 22. DORESWAMY A.N., AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, 23. SAVITHA R.S., W/O NARENDRA BABU N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 24. REVATHI M., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O RAMESH K., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 25. SAMPOORNA J.K., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O GIRISH B MANGANNAVAR, 26. BHARATHI S., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH, 27. SATISH REDDY K.V., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, 28. B.S. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O B. SUBRMANYAM, 29. K. SHANTHALA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O SHRIDHAR NAIK 30. THEJASWINI S.N., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O N. MANJUNATH, 31. VANISHREE V., AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O DEVARAJU, 32. GEETHA R.C., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O GIRISH K., 33. YASHAVANTH G.M., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE GOPAL RAO K., 34. ROOPA S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O ASHWATH K.R., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 35. SOWMYA RANI J., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SURESH B.K., 36. BINDU R., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SATISH BABU S., ALL THE ABOVE RESPONDENTS ARE CURRENTLY WORKING AS COURT OFFICERS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL BENCH, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRITHVESH M.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ROSHAN B. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT,1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED:11.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.34531/2025 AND UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE RESOLUTION DATED:15.03.2025 AS APPROVED BY HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, AND THE CONSEQUENT IMPUGNED INTIMATION DATED:25.04.2025 (NO.HCE 873/2013 (SO AND CO)) (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF) The High Court of Karnataka represented by the Registrar General is before us in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.34531/2025. The Writ Court under the impugned order allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned Endorsement dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure-A). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 3. Facts germane to file this appeal are as under: 4. The petitioners were before the Writ Court seeking following reliefs: a) “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Intimation bearing No.HCE 873/2013 (SO & CO) dated 25.04.2025, issued by teh Respondent as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the High Court of Karnataka - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (Annexure-’A'). b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent to consider afresh the Representations preferred by the Court Officers on 30.10.2014, 04.03.2020, 24.01.2022, and 20.06.2023, by granting the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard and thereby pass appropriate Orders (Annexures ‘D1’ to ‘D4’); and; c) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. The case of the petitioners before the Writ Court is as under: i) The petitioners are permanent employees of the High Court of Karnataka, working as Court Officers. Their service conditions including promotion to the Cadre of Assistant Registrar and other avenues are governed by the High Court of Karnataka Service (Condition of Service and Recruitment) Rules 19731, 1 for short, '1973 Rules' - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice exercising power under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. ii) It appears that some Court Officers and Assistant Court Officers of this Court have made certain representations to the Registry seeking up-gradation of their pay scale on par with Assistant Registrar and re-designation of their posts as Court Masters. They further sought the pay scale of Assistant Court Officers to the next higher level by re-designating the Assistant Court Masters. Similar sets of representations were submitted on 04.03.2020, 24.01.2022, 20.06.2023 and 06.08.2024 (Annexures-D2, D3, D4 & E). The representations were placed before the High Court Staff Committee for consideration constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Committee after deliberations found that the working strength of Assisted Registrar is 53 and the working strength of Section Officers is 152 and the Court Officers is 68. In terms of Schedule III of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 1973 Rules, the ratio 2:1, is to be maintained in the cadre strength by promotion as Assistant Registrar is 35 from the cadre of Section Officer and 18 from the cadre of Court Officer. However, having found that 22 Court Officers have been promoted as Assistant Registrar as against 31 Section Officers. As stated above, the ratio which should have been maintained is 35:18 since excess Court Officers have been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar there is a shortfall of 04 promotional avenues from the cadre of Section Officers to the post of Assistant Registrars. In that view of the matter, the Committee after deliberations and having found excess, considered that as and when vacancies arises, the same should be filled first by the Section Officers on the maintained ratio as provided under Schedule III, item No.6 i.e., 2:1 between the Section Officers and Court Officers and in order to achieve the said ratio resolved that, till the same is achieved the promotion - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 from the cadre of Court Officer shall not be considered for the promotion as presently it was found that the number of Court Officers who have been promoted to Assistant Registrar are in excess. iii) Further resolved that once the ratio i.e., 2:1 is achieved i.e., 35 posts from the cadre of Section Officer and 18 posts from the cadre of Court Officer, the future promotion will continue to be maintained in the same proportion in the ratio of 2:1 by ensuring that the promotion to the Assistant Registrar is filled from the same feeder cadre from which he/she has been promoted. iv) The Committee further in order to erase any ambiguity clarified that after achievement of 2:1 ratio, filling of Assistant Registrar would be from the same feeder cadre i.e., if a Court Officer is promoted as Assistant Registrar and he retires, the same should be filled from the Court Officer cadre and so on, similarly if the Assistant Registrar who has been - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 promoted from the feeder cadre of Section officer, on the event of his retirement, be filled only from the feeder cadre of Section Officer. In that view of the matter, the representations submitted by the petitioners and others to set-right the anomaly and increase the percentage of the ratio for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from the respective feeder cadre stand rejected. v) Further the Resolution passed by the Committee has been placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice and after approval in terms of the power enjoined under Rules 20 & 23 of 1973 Rules, the same was communicated to the petitioners vide Intimation dated 24.04.2025. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said Intimation were before the Writ Court. vi) Before the Writ Court, it was contented on behalf of the petitioners that they sought upgradation and re- designation of post of Court Officer and Assistant Court Officers and for re-fixation of ratio for the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar through multiple representations and the impugned intimation forwarded is contrary to their requests. It was contented further that though their representations in the last Paragraph of the Intimation stated to be rejected, but in the body of the intimation it suggests that the request was considered favorably, as such the impugned Intimation cannot simultaneously grant relief and reject the representation. vii) It was also contented referring to Rule 7 of 1973 Rules R/w Schedule III, Item No.6, the ratio stated in the Schedule applies to the vacancies existing at the time of appointment and not to the overall cadre strength. Since there is no ambiguity found in the Schedule of the Rules, the impugned Intimation is not warranted by way of clarification or correction. To buttress this contention, the petitioners relied on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 K.K.TIWARI AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS2, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in (2008) 5 SCC 741 and contended that the impugned Intimation is unsustainable in law. viii) Further it was contented that any change in the Schedule to maintain the ratio of 2:1, which was earlier based on vacancies available at the time of recruitment or promotion, must be done by amending the 1973 Rules in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Having not done so, the respondent has no authority to alter the method of recruitment by issuing the intimation. As such, the same is without any authority of law. ix) Lastly, it was contented that in the absence of any ambiguity in Rule 7, Schedule III of 1973 Rules, if the quota is prescribed for recruitment of post, the quota rule will have to be observed at the recruitment stage and once the recruitment is made 2 2001 SCC Online ALL 1024 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 from two different sources, they will have to be integrated into a common cadre and the birth marks will be vanished. To support the said contention, they relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. DR.R.N.BHATNAGAR AND ANOTHER3 and sought to allow the Writ Petition. x) On behalf of the respondent - High Court it was submitted that under Schedule III, Item No.6 of 1973 Rules, recruitment to the posts of Assistant Registrar and Assistant Registrar (Protocol) existing as on the date of representations were made is by promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit from the cadres of Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1. The Rule does not specify whether such ratio is based on roster, vacancy or cadre strength and when there is an ambiguity in the Rules, the decision of Hon'ble The Chief Justice is 3 (1992) 2 SCC 330 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 final in terms of the constitutional mandate under Article 229(2) under which the Rules are framed and enjoined the powers with Hon'ble The Chief Justice. To buttress the argument, the respondent - High Court relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4808/2022 and connected matters disposed of on 26.11.2024, as well as W.A.No.4411/2011 disposed of on 12.10.2011. xi) It was further urged before the Writ Court that under the Proviso to Rule 7, the prerogative power is vested with Hon'ble The Chief Justice to eradicate any ambiguity. Accordingly, the Committee was constituted by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, and the Committee has taken a decision for recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar and the ratio stated therein to be maintained with reference to cadre strength and the resolution has been accorded approval of Hon'ble The Chief Justice. As such, the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 intimation impugned is well within the power vested under the 1973 Rules. xii) It was further submitted that the judgment cited by the petitioners in DR.R.N.BHATNAGAR and K.K.TIWARI supra are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of DR.R.N.BHATNAGAR, the issue therein arose in the said case was on roster points, whereas in K.K.TIWARI, the rule itself, in that case, provided for filling up of vacancies and the same was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Since there is ambiguity in the Rule in view of the judgment of Apex Court in R.K.SABHARWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS4, wherein it was held that where a Rule is silent or vague regarding the mode of application of a quota, the ratio normally is applied with reference to cadre strength rather than on a vacancy basis. In that view of the matter, the 4 (1995) 2 SCC 745 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 respondent sought to dismiss the petition as the Intimation issued is just a clarificatory in nature approved by Hon'ble The Chief Justice in the discretion enjoined under the constitutional mandate in the 1973 Rules. xiii) In a rejoinder to the submissions, the petitioners submitted that even if Hon'ble The Chief Justice intends to amend the 1973 Rules with respect to fixing of ratio based on cadre strength, such an amendment has to be notified by in the Official Gazette and only thereafter it would come into force. However no such Notification has been published and referring to Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1987 submitted that, as no prescribed procedure has been followed, as such the Intimation is unsustainable and sought to allow the Writ Petition. xiv) Having considered the rival submissions, the Writ Court referring to Schedule III with respect to Assistant Registrar standing earlier to 28.05.2009, - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 subsequent to 28.05.2009 and again amended on 05.02.2013, extracting Rules 23 and 25, found that there is no ambiguity in Schedule III and Rule 7 of 1973 Rules while maintaining the ratio of 2:1. xv) Further observed that the discretion vested with Hon'ble The Chief Justice is only when an ambiguity in the Rule arose and not otherwise. It was also observed that there is no ambiguity found in the Rule and the same is clear and unambiguous and held that perusal of Rule 7 when R/w Schedule III, the same is clear that the recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar in the ratio has to be maintained in respect of arising vacancies on the date of promotion and the expression 'Recruitment' employed in Rule 7 R/w Schedule III of 1973 Rules, necessarily refers to the act of filling up of vacancy to the concerned posts and accordingly the vacancies available at the time of promotion have to be considered for the purpose of applying the prescribed - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 ratio 2:1 and since the Rule does not prescribe that the ratio has to be maintained with reference to overall cadre strength and in that event of the matter, the Rule is clear and unambiguous and the interpretation adopted under the impugned Intimation cannot be sustained. Accordingly, concluded to maintain ratio of 2:1 and modes in the cadre strength is contrary to Rule 7 R/w Schedule III of 1973 Rules and the intimation cannot be applied. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.K.TIWARI supra held that the ratio of 2:1 has to be applied based on the vacancy as on the date of appointment or promotion arise to the cadre of Assistant Registrar and not based on cadre strength, as the same cannot read in the Rules specifically Rule 7 R/w Schedule III Item 6 of Rules 1973. xvi) Further referring to the records which were earlier to 2013 Rules to the recruitment of Assistant Registrar - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 from 3 feeder categories at the ratio of 2:1:1, stated that as per the said quota, promotions were accorded to the eligible candidates i.e., Section Officers, Senior Assistants and Judgment Writers in the ratio 2:1:1. Until the year 2013 and subsequently amendment on 15.02.2013, promotion to the recruitment of Assistant Registrar was made from cadre of Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1 and since 2013 till date the same ratio has been maintained and at no point of time any excess promotion has been made from the cadre of Section Officer or Court Officer. xvii) So far as judgments relied on by the respondent- High Court in W.P.No.4808/2022, the Writ Court stated that, the Rules thereon was amended in 1995 specifically omitting the expression 'arising vacancies' with an intention of applying the quota against a fixed quota strength and a Government Official Memorandum having been issued in that regard, the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 Court upheld the Official Memorandum and further observed that the said order is called in question before the Supreme Court in SLP.No.8261/2025, 7030/2025, 23831/2025 and 19819/2025, whereunder the Supreme Court has granted leave and matters are pending for consideration. xviii) Considering all these aspects, the Writ Court has come to the conclusion that the intimation impugned in the petition is unsustainable in law and against the spirit of Rule 7, Schedule III, Item 6 and allowed the writ petition. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called question in this appeal. 6. Heard, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms.Kruthika Raghavan, for the petitioners and Sri.Prithvesh.M.K, learned counsel appearing for Sri.Rohan B.Hebbar, for caveator/ respondents 1 to 5. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 7. Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, argued on several grounds: (i) Firstly, learned senior counsel submits that the mandate under Schedule III does not prescribes the mode of promotion except maintain the ratio 2:1. In view of the ambiguity the basis for maintaining ratio 2:1, there was excess recruitment from the cadre of Court Officer against the strength of the Assistant Registrar maintained which is in excess to the ratio 2:1 which should have been 35 and 18. But as of the date of passing of the intimation it was 22 Court Officers were promoted as against 31. In that view of the matter there is shortfall of 4 promotional posts to the Section Officers, in order to maintain the cadre strength of 2:1, a Committee has been formed which after deliberations found that there is excess promotion against the ratio maintained i.e., 2:1, resolved to recommend in next promotion of Assistant Registrar, the candidate from the Section - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 Officer cadre be considered first and once the same reaches the ratio of 2:1, then in all future endeavors the same shall be maintained as 2:1 from each feeder cadre. Further the Resolution was placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice and the Chief Justice acting under the prerogative power enjoined under Rule 20, 23 and 25 accorded approval, thereby eradicating ambiguity. In that view of the matter, the Writ Court fell in error in holding that the intimation issued is without any authority of law as there is no amendment. He further submits that since the power is enjoined with Hon'ble The Chief Justice to eradicate any ambiguity under Rule 20, 23 and 25 granting the Veto power under 1973 Rules, to Hon'ble The Chief Justice to deal with case of any Court servant, in such manner as may appear to him to be just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, the intimation which is issued is just and is clarificatory in nature based on the fact that the - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 excess appointment to the cadre of Assistant Registrar from the feeder cadre of Court Officer as the same is against the cadre strength to meet the ratio of 2:1. In that view of the matter, the finding that the same requires to be done by way of an amendment does not stand to any reason. (ii) Secondly, Sri.D.R.Ravishankar submits that wherever a Rule is silent or vague regarding the mode of application of quota, the ratio must be normally applied on the basis of the cadre strength rather than on a vacancy basis. Since in the case on hand, the mode of appointment mechanism is absent, the provision made in Item No.6 of Schedule III has got more than one plausible construction and interpretation. Since there is a glaring ambiguity in promoting from the two feeder cadre, to maintain ratio of 2:1, the learned Single Judge must not have observed that Rule 7 R/w Schedule III, Item No.6 is clear and ambiguous. He further submits that what - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 is to be seen under Schedule III is as to in what manner the proper interpretation may be given which would bring the language used in consonance with that of the object and aim with which the same are inserted in the rules exercising power under Article 229 of Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the Rules 1973 under the constitutional mandate enjoins the prerogative power and discretion to Hon'ble The Chief Justice, in order to eradicate any ambiguity. Under Rules 20, 23 and 25, especially Rule 25, wherein all questions relating to the interpretation of any Rules of the Rules 1973, are subject to the decision of Hon'ble The Chief Justice and it shall be final. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge fell in error to state that the Rule is clear and unambiguous and interpreted the same in a way which is detrimental to the Rules by adding a word 'Vacancy' which is not at all found in the avenue. He further emphasizes - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 more on the fact that when there are two views reasonably possible on the manner of applying the quota between feeder cadre, the rule cannot be characterized and be said as unambiguous and incapable of administrative interpretation. To buttress his argument, he relied on the judgment of R.K.SABHARWAL supra, to stress that when the Rule is silent or vague regarding the mode of application of a quota, a ratio must normally be applied with reference to cadre strength rather than on a vacancy based. (iii) Thirdly, he submits that the Staff Committee resolution impugned was expressly approved by Hon'ble The Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India being the ultimate Rule making Authority, the impugned Intimation merely communicates that decision. The learned Single Judge fell in error and failed to give due effect to this statutory and constitutional position and read - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 the same as a mere executive circular detached from Article 229 and the Rules which enjoins and vests prerogative power to Hon'ble The Chief Justice to interpret a Rule wherever there is ambiguity. (iv) Fourthly, referring to the judgments of K.K.TIWARI and Dr.R.N.BHATNAGAR submits that both the judgments are distinguishable on the facts. In the case of Dr.R.N.BHATNAGAR, the post was on the basis of roster point and in K.K.TIWARI, the Rule itself provided for filling up of the vacancy. In the case on hand, the situation is otherwise. The avenue prescribed in the Schedule III Item No. 6 does not specify the basis to maintain 2:1 ratio, which has resulted in promotion of excess in ratio 2:1. Even in the judgment of K.K.TIWARI, the Supreme Court has stated that if the ratio in promotion is ignored, resultantly a situation may arise where one cadre will get excess quota as compared to other feeder cadre. This is what exactly had occurred in the case - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 on hand, which has been considered by the Committee and resolved to recommend and which has been approved by Hon'ble The Chief Justice exercising his Veto power granted, particularly Rules 23 and 25 of 1973 Rules. With this learned Senior Counsel sought to set aside the order and dismiss the writ petition. 8. In contrast, Sri.M.K.Prithvesh, submits in support of the order passed by the Writ Court, reiterating the very same contentions taken and relying on the judgments, which have been relied and considered by the Writ Court. 9. Sr.M.K.Prithvesh submits that the Rule as well as the provision under Schedule III, Item 6 is very clear in referring to the promotion from the feeder cadre of Section Officer and Court Officer at 2:1 and clearly suggests that the same is to the post of promotion to the Assistant Registrar whenever the vacancy arises and as such the same is vacancy based and not on the cadre - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 strength. The intimation impugned in the writ petition is without any amendment to the existing Rule or express provision in Schedule III, Item 6 mentioning the same as based on cadre strength. The Writ Court has properly considered the same and passed the order which does not call for any interference. 10. Having heard the rival submissions, we have perused the entire writ appeal paper. Since the Writ Court has already extracted the Provisions of Rule 23 and 25, so also the mode of promotion provided under Schedule III, there is no necessity of extracting the same in our order. However, it would be apt to refer to Rule 20 which reads as under: "20. Powers of Chief Justice:- Nothing in the rules in this part shall be construed to limit or abridge the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any Court Servant in such manner as may appear to him to be just and reasonable: Provided that where any rule is applicable to the case of a Court Servant, his case shall not be - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 dealt with in a manner less favorable to him than that provided by the said rule." 11. In view of the residuary power and the power of interpretation enjoined with Hon'ble The Chief Justice, we have to consider the order passed by the Writ Court. The Writ Court has stated that the power under Rule 25 is applicable only when there is ambiguity arose. But, held that the mode provided in Schedule III under the Rules is unambiguous and clear and further held that a reading of Rule 7 R/w Schedule III, when it is seen to the word recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Registrar (Protocol), is by promotion from the cadre of Section Officer and Court Officer in the ratio of 2:1 has to be maintained in respect of arising vacancies, since the expression 'recruitment employed' in Rule 7 R/w Schedule III of 1973 Rules necessarily refers to the act of filling up of the vacancy to the concerned post. As such, the ratio has to be maintained with reference to vacancy based and - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 not on the overall cadre strength and the impugned intimation cannot be upheld. 12. A perusal of intimation at Annexure-A clearly shows that the working strength of Assistant Registrar is 53, whereas the working strength of the Section Officer is 152 and that of the Court Officer is 68. In that view of the matter ratio of 2:1 needed to be maintained in the cadre strength of Assistant Registrar, which would be 35 from the cadre if Section Officer and 18 from the cadre of the Court Officer. The Committee which has been appointed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice to eradicate the ambiguity having found that there are excess promotion granted from the cadre of Court Officer in violation of ratio to be maintained as 2:1, in that view of the matter, resolved to recommend that in any future promotion, till the cadre strength of Section Officer is maintained, no promotion from the cadre of Court Officer shall be considered and once the same achieves the ratio of 2:1 cadre strength, in - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 future promotions, the feeder cadre from each be considered. Further elaborated the same as under: "To further elaborate, the Assistant Registrar who is promoted from the feeder cadre of Court Officer retires, such post to be filled up from the feeder cadre of Court Officer. Similarly, Assistant Registrar promoted from the feeder cadre of Section Officer retires, his/her post will be filled up only from the feeder cadre of Section Officer. Therefore, the representations of Section Officers and the Court Officers seeking to set right the anomaly and increase the percentage/ratio for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar from their respective cadres stands rejected." 13. We find force in the argument of Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel that the intimation issued is clarificatory in nature while eradicating the ambiguity crept in the mode of promotion to maintain the ratio of 2:1. The Resolution of the Committee having been placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice and approved under the powers more especially Rule 23 and 25 exercising the Rule making power provided therein. In the - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 teeth of Rule 20 which clarifies that nothing in the Rule shall limit or abridge the power of the Chief Justice to deal with the case of any Court Servant in such manner as may appear to him to be just and reasonable and further Rule 23 which provides that nothing in the Rules shall affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these Rules not specifically provided for or in regard to matters as have not been specifically provided for, the finding of the Writ Court that in the absence of any amendment and in the absence of ambiguity in the Rule, the mode of promotion based on the cadre strength to maintain 2:1, as per the Intimation cannot be sustained, does not stand to any reason. Further the finding of the Writ Court that by emphasizing on the expression 'Recruitment' which necessarily refers to filling up of vacancy based and not on the basis of cadre strength is against the mandate of Rules which provides - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 power to Hon'ble The Chief Justice of interpretation under 1973 Rules. 14. As we find force in the argument of learned Senior counsel for the appellant that in the absence of mode of promotion, there are more than one plausible construction to the mode and Hon'ble The Chief Justice to eradicate any such ambiguity formed the Committee and the Committee forwarded the Resolution after deliberating on the same, recommended the mode on cadre strength based, and the same having been approved by Hon'ble The Chief Justice exercising power enjoined in Rule 20 R/w Rule 25 which gives prerogative power to Hon'ble The Chief Justice to interpret any of the Rules specified in Rules 1973 with regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to the Rules to any of the Court Servants in such manner as may appear to him to be just and reasonable, in that view of the matter the intimation at Annexure-'A' is well within the 1973 Rules. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 15. Further, the 1973 Rules are framed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, expressly recognizes that the ultimate authority vested with the Chief Justice in the matter of Rule making in recruitment and service conditions of High Court Staffs. In that view of the matter, as rightly submitted by learned Senior counsel, Hon'ble The Chief Justice is the final authority to interpret 1973 Rules on administration side and his decision is final. The Writ Court missed this aspect of the matter and tried to add a word which is not at all there in the mode of promotion provided in Item No.6 of Schedule-III appended to Rules, 1973 while making recruitment under Rule 7. 16. It is trite law as expounded by the Supreme Court in catena of cases that neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court add, substitute or delete words in a statute as the same amounts to legislation rather than interpretation. In the teeth of the prerogative and discretionary power vested with Hon'ble The Chief Justice, - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 any interpretation other than the one taken on the administrative side amounts to interfering with the ultimate Rule making authority. The Courts cannot under the guise of interpretation, alter the character or purpose of the legislation, as such the interpretation of the Writ Court regarding the mode of promotion prescribed in Item No.6 under the ratio 2:1 from the feeder cadre of Section Officer and Court Officer is vacancy based is unsustainable in law and it goes against the object and aim of the Rule, wherein the final interpretation authority is ultimately vested with Hon'ble The Chief Justice on administrative side. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Writ Court requires interference accordingly. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER I. The Writ Appeal is allowed. The order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.34531/2025 is set aside and the Writ - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20724-DB WA No. 1158 of 2026 Petition is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits and the Intimation at Annexure-A in the Writ Petition dated 25.04.2025 is confirmed. II. No order as to costs. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 ct-vn