MAHESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unfazed, undaunted and not chastened by the dismissal of their writ petition against the order of termination dated 01/8/2005, dismissal of an intra Court Appeal, rejection of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, subsequent dismissal of a review petition by the Apex Court as well as a Curative Petition these 35 petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Admittedly the sole ground which emboldens these petitioners to approach this Court yet again are the findings returned and recorded in an Enquiry Report submitted in proceedings taken against the then District Judge, Baghpat, which was subsequently accepted by the Administrative Committee of this Court in its meeting held on 23/4/2013.

(3.) But first a brief resume of the undisputed facts: a recruitment process for filling of Class-III posts in the District Judgeship, Baghpat was undertaken in the year 2000. The advertisement issued by the then District Judge, Baghpat stated that there were 10 vacancies, in the Class-III cadre which were liable to be filled. The advertisement further stated that the vacancies were likely to increase or decrease. The petitioners participated in the said selection process and the names of the petitioner nos.1 to 7 find place at Serial Nos.11, 12 and 14 to 18, the names of the petitioner nos.8 to 29 find place at Serial nos.21 to 42 and the names of the petitioners Nos. 30 to 35 at serial nos.45 to 47 and at serial nos.49, 50 and 51. This occurred on account of the District Judge preparing a select list of 73 candidates against the advertised 10 vacancies. It subsequently, transpires that the petitioners were issued letters of appointment pursuant to which they joined on class-III post of Clerks in the judgeship concerned. It is then to be noted that the select list referred to above was expiring on 05/4/2000, and accordingly the District Judge by his order dated 04/4/2001, extended the life of the select list up to 05/4/2002. In the meanwhile, this Court on its administrative side appears to have called for an explanation from the District Judge for explaining the extension of life of the select list beyond the period of one year. It appears that upon receipt of the said notice, the District Judge passed an order terminating the services of 19 employees who were appointed after the expiry of one year of the select list dated 05/4/2000.