NAGENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are inter linked with each other and having been filed by one and the same person were taken up together with the consent of the parties Counsel for a convenient disposal by common judgment. In fact writ petition No. 45392 of 1999 was instituted for quashing the order dated 6.10-1999 whereby the petitioner was 'ceased to work' with immediate effect and writ petition No. 28366 of 2000 has been instituted for quashing the order dated 19.5.2000 of the District Judge, Ghazipur thereby rejecting the application moved by the petitioner on 6.5.2000 with a request to be permitted to work as a class IV employee in the judgeship of Ghazipur.

(2.) The petitioner appeared in the test held for recruitment on class IV posts in the judgeship of Ghazipur pursuant to an advertisement published in 'Purvanchal Times', a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition No. 45392 of 1999. The result of the selection was declared pursuant to recommendation made by the duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner was declared successful, it may, however, be observed that albeit the petitioner had secured highest marks but in the select list, being Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition No. 45392 of 1999, his name was shown at S. No. 5. The select list was approved vide order dated 19.12.1998 with the stipulation that it would remain valid for a period of one year only and would automatically stand lapsed on the expiry of the said period of one year unless revised. By self same order dated 19.12.1998 the District Judge ordered that the appointment letters be issued only against substantive vacancies for the post of Process Servers, Orderlies, Office Peons and Farrash. Consequent upon the order dated 19.12.1998 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur the petitioner was appointed. But by order dated 6.10.1999 the petitioner was 'ceased to work' with a direction to wait until occurrence of vacancy. As stated herein above the order dated 6.10.1999 is the subject matter of challenge in writ petition No. 45392 of 1999.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Mukhtar Ahmad, IVth Additional District Judge, Ghazipur the order dated 6.. 10.1999 is sought to be justified on the plea that the appointments were to be given only in accordance with the roster but no roster was prepared by the then District Judge and on a roster being prepared by the present District Judge Sri Vikrmajit Singh, the petitioner who was shown at S. No. 5 in the select list came to be placed at S. No. .8. Appointments, according to the respondents, ought to have been given only in accordance with the roster and since the petitioner was placed at S. No. 8 in the roster prepared by present District Judge, the impugned order dated 6.10.1999 had to be passed with a view to giving appointment to candidate above him in the roster. It is further stated in the said counter-affidavit that after making appointments in accordance with the roster no vacancy existed and, therefore, the petitioner Nagendra Singh Yadav, was 'ceased to work' and "required to wait for his turn for the purpose of appointment upon occurrence of any vacancy. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner moved an application before the District Judge on 6.5:2000 for being given appointment.. This application culminated in an order of rejection dated 19.5.2000 which is the subject matter of challenge in the second writ petition No., 28366 of 2000. The application has been rejected on three grounds: firstly, that the petitioner ceased to be an approved candidate because the wait list died its own death on 18.12.1999 and no vacancy was caused by the said date-, secondly, that the petitioner was wrongly placed at S. No. 5 in the select list and on that basis he was appointed in place of rightful candidate; and thirdly, when he could not be given any benefit of his previous appointment after the expiry of the life of the wait list, be cannot now claim right due to any such wait list for the whole life.