SACHITA NAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three special Appeals are directed against a common judgment whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants. In the writ petitions, the appellants had sought a writ of mandamus to command the District Judge, Jaunpur to appoint them as Paid Apprentice in his Judgeship and to forbear from holding further examination for preparation of a select list.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petitions and the present Special Appeals may immediately be stated. In the year 1986, the District Judge, Jaunpur held examination for preparing a select list out of which appointments were to be made to the post of Paid Apprentice. After holding written examination and interview, a list of 61 candidates was published on 24th March 1986. la this list, the names of the appellants Sachida Nand Singh, Hitendra Kumar Chaturvedi and Sanjay Kumar Upadhya (petitioners in writ petition no. 9020 of 1989) appeared at Serial numbers 30, 31, and 37 respectively and Kailash Nath Maurya, Rais Ahmad, Om Prakash Srivastava and Mohammad Akhtar (petitioners in writ petition no. 7826 of 1989) at serial numbers 49, 51, 52 and 59 respectively. Dharmendra Kumar Tewari (petitioner no. 4 in writ petition no. 7826 of 1989) claims that his name appeared at serial No. 55. Similarly, the name of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the sole petitioner in writ petition no. 13220 of 1989, found place at serial no. 38. In 1986 itself, persons whose names figured at serial numbers 1 to 23 were given appointment. In April-May, 1986, the appellants were appointed for short duration and paid salary for the period they worked. In December 1987, three persons, in 1988 seven persons and on 1-1-1989 one person were appointed out of the same list. THE appellants did not get regular appointment and they represented their case to the District Judge. THE District Judge by his order dated 15th April, 1989 rejected the representations and cancelled the list prepared in the year 1986. THE appellants were aggrieved by the order of the District Judge and accordingly they tilled the writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeals.

(3.) IN the rejoinder-affidavit, the appellants denied the allegation of manipulation of vacancies.