DURGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy raised in all the three writ petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition No. 25021 of 1999 Durga Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., shall be treated as the leading case.

(2.) The relief claimed in the writ petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued directing (a) the U. P. Public Service Commission to forward the entire list of candidates, who had appeared in U. P. Nyayik Sewa (Junior Division) Examination, 1997, and have secured minimum qualifying marks fixed by the Commission to the State Government (b) the State Government to consider the petitioners for making appointments against total number of vacancies which have fallen vacant in the years 1991 to 1997 being 198 (or 214, on the basis of cadre strength) ; (c) to calculate and fill up the vacancies which have been caused due to compulsory retirement, death or termination of service of officers and also 'creation of new posts of Civil Judge by the State Government during the relevant years ; and (d) not to fill up the vacancies which have fallen vacant during the years 1991-1997 by any subsequent advertisement.

(3.) The case of the petitioners, as set forth in the writ petition, in brief is that the vacancies on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) upto the recruitment year 1990 were filled up on the basis of examination held by the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) in the year 1991 and, thereafter, no competitive examination was held till 1996. The Commission issued an advertisement for holding an examination for making appointments in the U.P. Nyayik Sewa Civil Judge (Junior Division) in December, 1997 (for short, 1997 examination), in which all the vacancies for the earlier periods were advertised. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that examination would be held for filling in 93 vacancies. The petitioners appeared in the examination and having qualified in the same were called for interview. The Commission after declaration of result forwarded a list of 93 candidates only to the State Government and in the said list the names of petitioners were not included. The case of the petitioners further is that the cadre strength of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was 717 and before the advertisement was issued, only 503 officers were working on the said post and thus there was shortage of 214 officers in the cadre. According to the petitioners, the High Court had not intimated the correct number of vacancies to the State Government and the requisition sent by the State Government to the Commission whereby it was required to select candidates only for 93 vacancies was also wrong. The petitioners contend that the State Government should have sent requisition for all the available vacancies and the Commission should have sent the select list for the same, namely, all the available vacancies and its action in forwarding the list of 93 candidates only was illegal.