BHAGWAN DASS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of District Judge, Azamgarh dated 26-10-1990 whereby he cancelled the existing waiting list prepared on 17-5-1986 in pursuance of an advertisement dated 24-10-1985 for the posts of process servers, Orderlies etc. The list cancelled was being maintained by District Judge, Azamgarh under Rule 12(i) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (in short Rules). Besides seeking quashing of the order dated 26-10-1990 of the District Judge, Azamgarh the Petitioners have also sought the relief of writ of mandamus for issuing, directions against the District Judge, Azamgarh. The District Judge Maunath Bhanjan (in short 'Mau') and the Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to provide employment to Petitioners in accordance with the said waiting list.

(2.) Couater-affidavit and Rejoinder affidavit being filed, the case is being disposed of at the stage of admission in accordance with rules of the Court.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that by an advertisement dated 24-10-1986 six vacancies of Class IV were advertised for being filled up by direct recruitment on the post of Orderlies. Applications were invited to fill up the posts. The last date for submitting applications was 20-1-1986 and selection was held on 4-5-1986, when candidates were interviewed by a Selection Committee. The result of selection gave rise to a select list of 43 candidates. This select list is also known as waiting list for the purpose of Rule 12(i). The District Judge appointed candidates placed at serial nos. 1 to 16, leaviug candidates from serial nos. .17 to 43 on the waiting list. This waiting list was for the Judgeship of Azamgarh in accordance with Rule 12(i). The District Judge, Azamgarh allowed continuance of candidates placed at serial nos. 12 to 16 of the list till they were dropped by the District Judge, Azamgarh on 8-J2-1986. Subsequently, the District Judge, Azamgarh cancelled the waiting list. The effect of the cancellation of waiting list was that only 11 persons selected at said selection could get appointment. Feeling aggrieved by order of cancellation of waiting list, the candidates at serial numbers 12 to 19 and 26 filed Writ Petition No. 1081 of 1987 before this Court. This writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of this Court which quashed the order of District Judge, Azamgarh on 4-8-1987 and, therefore, the waiting list revived. After quashing of the order of the District Judge, Azamgarh, candidates on the waiting list at serial number 12 to 19 were also given appointments. While other candidates who were on the waiting list were awaiting appointments, a new Judgeship at Mau was created. The new Judgeship was carved out from certain areas of Azamgarh and Ballia Judgeships. For manning the newly established Judgeship of Mau directions were issued by High Court, which were circulated by Joint Registrar of the High Court by letter No. 11307/Main-A/Admin (D) dated Alld. November 16, 1989. The directions in respect of class IV employees were that employees who opt to be transferred from the Judgeship of Azamgarh and Ballia, which were described as parent Judgships, were to be transferred to new Judgeship of Mau. This letter of Additional Registrar was silent on the question as to how the posts which remained vacant after absorption of transferred employees of Class IV were to be filled up. To fill up the posts which remained vacant at Mau Judgeship, the District Judge, Mau advertised them on 21-6-90. A selection was held by the District Judge, Mau at which a list of 45 candidates was prepared, Out of the list only 26 candidates of the list were given appointments by District Judge, Mau. The District Judge Mau made these appointments subject to decision of Writ Petition No. 21262 of 1990 pending before this Court. Feeling aggrieved from said selection and appointment at Mau Judgeship, the Petitioners have approached this Court claiming that the candidates who were on the waiting list of Azamgarh Judgeship maintained under Rule 12. which included the Petitioners, the candidates were to be appointed at Mau Judgeship. The Petitioners have sought relief of Mandamus claiming that they be appointed on vacancies of Mau Judgeship.