ARVIND KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance to the advertisement issued on 15.7.2000 for appointment on eleven post of Class IV employees under U.P. Subordinate Courts Employees Establishment Rules of 1955 (hereinafter Rules of 1955), Petitioner applied for the same. No selection process was undertaken in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement. Fresh advertisement was issued on 24.3.2003 by Respondent No. 1 for fifteen Class IV posts with clear stipulation that those who had applied in pursuance of the earlier advertisement would also be considered in the said process of selection. Selection process had concluded in making selection of fifteen Class IV employees and Petitioner figured at Serial No. 15 of the said select list. Appointment letter was issued to the Petitioner on 27.6.2003 and he joined the services on 30.6.2003.

(2.) A show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 20.8.2007 seeking termination of his services in pursuance of the judgment passed by this Court in Surendra Kumar Kushwaha and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.7.2007 in Writ Petition No. 43323 of 2005. Show-cause notice was questioned by the Petitioner which was dismissed on the premise that the writ petition was premature. After having submitted his reply to the show-cause notice impugned order dated 12.9.2007 was issued. The grounds for cancelling the appointment of Petitioner was that one Om Prakash Tripathi was transferred from judgeship of Balrampur to Hameerpur in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court on 24.4.2003 as a result of this transfer one vacancy was filled up from the transferee employee resulting in the ouster of the Petitioner who figured at SI. No. 15. This order is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this writ petition the material facts are required to be noted. The process of making selection to the Class IV employees was done in pursuance to Rule 12 of the Rules of 1955 which provides for preparation of wait list of making appointment on Class IV post. The said wait list is prepared on the basis of the available vacancies as also the vacancies which are likely to fall vacant in future. Pursuing the course provided by Rule 12 of Rules 1955 Respondents prepared the list of 34 candidates who were put on wait list. It transpires that during the selection process seven Class IV employees were promoted to Class III posts as a consequence of which vacancies became available in Class IV posts. On availability of aforesaid seven posts one of the candidates S. K. Kushwaha also found his name in the said list. One of the promoted Class IV employee to Class III posts Sri Amresh Kumar Shukla was reverted back to his post as a result of which Sri S. K. Kushwaha who was last in the line was ousted from service. A writ petition came to be filed before this Court by Sri S.K. Kushwaha being Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 43323 of 2005. This Court observed that appointment of the Petitioner therein was made against the vacancies which were in excess of posts advertised. The court relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others, 1996 AIR(SC) 976, observed that no appointment in excess of the post advertised is permissible as a result of which appointment made in favour of the Petitioner therein and other candidates was required to be terminated.