ANIL KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

(2.) THE petitioners in the present writ petition were appointed as paid apprentice/clerks in the office of the District Judge, Pilibhit. THEy claim the following reliefs in this petition: (a) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of this Court on administrative side communicated through the letter dated 5-12-1989 (Annexure No. 17) so far as it stands against the petitioners. (b) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the select list published on 19-8-1987 to be continuing to be operative so far as the petitioners are concerned and not to ignore it on the ground that the same had exhausted. (c) For issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vacancies which have come into existence in the month of March, 1989 treating the same as vacant.

(3.) RULES 9 to 11 stand suspended and are no more in force after the RULES for Recruitment of Ministerial Staff to the Subordinate Offices, 1950 were promulgated. RULES 3, 4, 5 and 7 of these RULES of 1950 apply to the Civil Court establishment also. So, while making the recruitment for Class III posts in the judgeship, the aforesaid rules will have to be followed.