1. The constitutional propriety in issuing Ext.P4 reply by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala declining to approve the proposal for re-designation of the posts of Court Keeper and Court Keeper (Higher Grade) under the Kerala High Court service, as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant respectively, is the issue arising for consideration in the writ petition.

2. Writ petitioners are members of the Kerala High Court Service, working as Court Keepers (Higher Grade) and Court Keepers. The duties and responsibilities of Court Keepers are similar to that Amenities Assistants in the Legislature Department, contend the petitioners. The Petitioners therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 31.03.2021 to the High Court of Kerala requesting to re- designate the posts of Court Keeper as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and the Court Keeper (Higher Grade) as Senior Court Amenities Assistant.

3. The request was placed before the Grievance Committee constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice. The Grievance Committee of the High Court was of the opinion that the posts should be re-designated. The said recommendation was accepted by the Honourable Chief Justice. The matter was forwarded to the 1st respondent-State of Kerala for approval. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P4 communication dated 25.09.2024, has rejected the approval for re-designation of the posts.

4. The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 communication alleging that it is arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by non- application of mind. The petitioners urge that the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court, exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, has re-designated the post of Court Keeper and Court Keeper (HG) as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant respectively. Ext.P4 has been issued in violation of the principles laid down by this Court and the Honourable Apex Court in the matter. Ext.P4 is therefore liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled for declaration that the posts are liable to be re-designated.

5. The 1st respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that re- designation of the post of cadre cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a policy decision to be taken on the administrative level. The Registrar General of the High Court required for sanction of re-designation on the ground that the duties and responsibilities are similar to that of Amenities Assistants in the Legislature Department. The said reason is incorrect.

6. Amenities Assistants in MLA Hostel in Legislature Secretariat discharge far more and wider responsibilities. The duties of both the categories cannot be compared. The qualification prescribed for the posts of Court Keeper and Amenities Assistants are more or less the same but the duties and responsibilities assigned are different. The re- designation does not seem to involve administrative necessity or functional requirement. The proposed re- designation will result in additional financial burden on the State Exchequer. Hence, the proposal is declined. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, contended the learned Advocate General representing the 1st respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate General representing the State of Kerala and the learned Standing Counsel representing the High Court of Kerala.

8. The petitioners, who are working as Court Keeper (Higher Grade) and Court Keeper, seek re-designation as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant. Their requests were considered by the Grievance Committee constituted by the Honourable Chief Justice and the Grievance Committee gave a positive recommendation which was accepted by the High Court. The 1st respondent, however, has rejected the proposal as per Ext.P4 holding that existing designation is quite sufficient and there is no administrative necessity or functional requirement calling for re-designation. The re-designation will result in additional financial burden, according to the 1st respondent.

9. At the outset, it has to be stated that when Rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. Such approval cannot be straight away refused.

10. The 1st respondent has declined the proposal for Redesignation holding that (1) the duties and responsibilities of the posts are entirely different, (2) existing designation is sufficient in view of the duties attached to the post, (3) there is no administrative necessary or functional requirement and (4) Redesignation will result in additional financial burden on the State exchequer.

11. The duties assigned to the Court Keepers are as follows:

                  (1) The Court Keepers are assigned with the duty of safeguarding the security of the High Court premises along with Watchmen and Police personnel, especially after regular office hours. If any suspicious person is found entering the High Court building or premises, the matter be intimated or the person be taken to the Security Officer, at once.

                  (2) The Court Keepers must ensure that the doors of Court Halls are closed while the air conditioner is functioning and they must learn as to how air conditioner in Court Halls are switched on and off and are regulated. They should ensure that no light or fan is working in the locked rooms of High Court and that all Chambers / Court Halls / Sections are locked during night. Any untoward incident such as any damage due to lightning, leakage, fire, etc. should be informed to the higher authorities forthwith.

                  (3) When any function is organised by the High Court, the Court Keepers of required number must be present during the function and the seniormost Court Keeper present on duty that day, under the guidelines of Section Officer, 'K' Section, must ensure that necessary staff are detailed for duty to carry out the directions issued to them by the senior officers until the function is over.

                  (4) Any Court Keeper going out of the High Court during office hours must make necessary entries in a register kept in 'K' Section mentioning the purpose for which he is going out or get prior permission from the controlling officer.

                  (5) The Court Keeper who is in charge of a floor of the High Court shall ensure that the Chambers of Honourable Judges, Court halls, etc. are kept clean and tidy and articles are arranged neatly and properly.

                  (6) On getting direction from Controlling Officer / Section Officer of Stationery section, the seniormost Court Keeper will send Court Keepers to bring stationery articles from outside according to their turn, under intimation to the Controlling Officer, 'K' Section.

                  (7) Any other directions issued by the Controlling Officer / Higher Authorities in connection with any urgent work are to be complied with promptly.

12. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent in paragraph 8 gives the duties and functions of Amenities Assistants under the Legislature Secretariat. A comparison of the duties of Court Keepers and Amenities Assistants would show that the duties are comparable to a very large extent. The Amenities Assistants are discharging their duties at MLA Hostel in Legislature Secretariat. The duties of Court Keepers being related to the High Court building, they are more serious in nature. Therefore, the 1st respondent erred in rejecting the proposal on that ground.

13. Article 229 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to take decision on all service related matters of the employees of the High Court. Judiciary being a separate branch independent of the Government should fall under the sole responsibility of the Chief Justice. Whether the existing designation of a group of employees in the High Court is sufficient or not, has to be decided by the High Court. Subjective satisfaction of a government officer cannot overstep the decision of the Honourable Chief Justice in that regard. The requirement of administrative necessity or functional requirement in redesignation is also to be left to the decision of the High Court. The Executive is not empowered or expected to sit as an appellate or Revisional authority over the decision of the High Court.

14. While issuing Ext.P4, the 1st respondent has ignored the constitutional essence. The Rules framed by the Honourable Chief Justice should normally be accepted by the Government. The contention of the 1st respondent that the issue involved is a policy matter, cannot be accepted.

                  Assuming that re-designation of posts is a policy matter, the policy decision should be taken by the High Court and not by the executive arm of the State. It is not for the executive to decide the functional necessity or administrative requirements of the High Court.

15. Comity between different institutions working under the Constitution is the requirement. The emphasis is not on the supremacy of one institution or demarcating the boundaries of the other. It is about ensuring institutional integrity of one while respecting the functional domain of the other, as has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Ramesh Chandra Mundra and others [(2020) 20 SCC 163].

16. Having regard to the importance of the matter, I consider it appropriate to set aside the decision of the 1st respondent in not accepting the proposal of the Honourable Chief Justice and remand the matter back to the State Government for appropriate consideration.

17. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders on the proposal submitted by the High Court in the light of the observations made in this judgment. Orders shall be passed within a period of four months.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.