SUBHASH CHANDRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR appointment to class III posts in Meerut Judge ship, applications were invited and examination was held. After the result was declared, a list of selected candidates was drawn on 3-3-1987 and the appointments during the next one year were to be made in order of merit from that list Petitioners, who were some of the selected candidates and whose names were placed in the above list, were appointed on various dates from 4-4-1988 to 13-6-1988 to class III posts In Meerut Judgeship The petitioners claim to have been appointed on regular basis while the respondent has stated that their appointments were on ad hoc basis From the perusal of appointment letters, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 3 to 8 to writ petition, fit appears that they were appointed as officiating paid Aprentices on fixed salary of Rs 350/- per months. By order dated 5-8-1992 the learned District Judge, Meerut has directed for compliance of the order passed by this Court on 8-8-1991 in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 1989. wherein it was laid down that a select list, prepared under Rule 14 of the Sub-ordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, cannot last more than one year and no appointment can be made after the expiry of one year from the date the list was prepared. Petitioners have thereafter filed this writ petition for quashing the above order dated 5-8-1992. passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut.

(2.) RESPONDEAT has filed counter affidavit and the petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has however, relying on the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15. argued that as the petitioners have been appointed, although after the expiry of one year from the date of list, the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 cannot be applied. In support of this proposition learned counsel has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Satendra Prasad Sharma v. District Judge, 1987 AWC 167.