SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Sri D.S.P. Singh appearing for respondents and learned Standing learned Standing.

(2.) It appears that petitioners who are working as Munsarim Reader in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr challenging the selection of respondent No. 4 on the ground that there was no criteria for the purpose of holding examination.The rule only provides seniority-cum-merit, therefore, marks bifurcated for the purposes of written test, interview and other service records cannot be held and criteria for selection itself is bad. Further submission has been made according to Rules that if there was only one vacancy then maximum five candidate should have been called for consideration but ten candidate have been called for the purposes of promotion on the post of Sadar Munsarim. Further submission has been made that marks bifurcated for the purposes of service record, Hindi letter drafting, English letter drafting, written test and interview are not provided under the Rules 1946.

(3.) Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counel appearing for petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Sayyed Muttaqui Raza v. District Judge, Banda and others, 1999 ALJ 2650 and hats placed reliance upon paragraph 14 of the said judgment. The same is being quoted below :