RAJESH SINGH Vs. VIDYADHIRAJ PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these five Special Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.05.2006, by which large number of writ petitions have been disposed of.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to all these Special Appeals are that the new District Kaushambi was carved out from District Allahabad and in District Judgeship Kaushambi, appointments were made on various posts including the posts of Driver, Stenographer in 1998 and 1999. Subsequently, appointments were made on the post of Clerks on 15.01.2001 for a period of three months on ad hoc basis. While making ad hoc appointments for a period of three months, neither the advertisement was issued inviting applications nor names had been requisitioned from the Employment Exchange. There had been no extension of the services of such ad hoc appointees. However, persons appointed for three months vide order dated 15.01.2001 continued to serve for a period of about two years. The District Judge sought permission from the High Court for extension of their services and also for regularization of those persons who had completed three years, vide letter dated 11.12.2002. The Court vide letter dated 01.05.2003 pointed out that no ad hoc appointment would be made nor the period of services of ad hoc appointees would be extended. However, if the ad hoc appointees had been continuing for a long period and regularization is permissible in accordance with the Rules, their cases may be considered. The Court further directed to fill up the then existing vacancies by making regular appointments in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said letter, the services of ad hoc appointees were terminated vide order dated 20.05.2003. The said termination order was challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23939 of 2003 before this Court and an interim relief was granted keeping the order of termination dated 20.05.2003 in abeyance, vide order dated 28.05.2003. The said order stood modified by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2003 issuing directions to fill up vacancies by regular selection and the persons working on ad hoc basis were also permitted to participate in the regular selection. For filling up four posts of Stenographers and 19 posts of Clerks on regular basis, an advertisement dated 28.05.2003 was issued. The appointments were to be made under the provisions of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947, which provided, for the post of Stenographers, that a candidate must possess the qualification of Intermediate or equivalent examination, Hindi Shorthand speed of 100 words per minute, Hindi Typing speed of 35 words per minute. The knowledge of English Shorthand and English typing was prescribed as an additional qualification. The candidates were also required to possess Diploma or certificate in Hindi Shorthand and Hindi Typing from a recognized institution. For the post of Clerks, minimum qualification was Intermediate or equivalent examination, Hindi and English Typing knowledge was prescribed as an additional qualification. A large number of candidates appeared in the examination and the result was declared on 29th September, 2004. Appointments were made of some of the appellants herein. The said selection was challenged by some unsuccessful candidates including some of the ad hoc appointees, who were continuing in services under the interim order of the Court and had participated in the regular selection, on large number of grounds, and particularly, that there had been no proper examinations; selection stood vitiated because of the illegality and fraud played by the Appointing Authority; answer sheets were not examined properly; if a question carried maximum 10 marks, candidates had been awarded more than 10 marks in that question. Considering the seriousness of the allegations made in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge summoned the original records, i.e. answer books of the selected candidates and also called the Appointing Authority, i.e. the then District Judge and also the Additional District Judge, who was one of the Members of the Selection Committee. The learned Single Judge took pain to examine the answer sheets and the District Judge, i.e. the Appointing Authority and the Additional District Judge, Member of the Selection Committee were asked to explain their conduct and furnish an explanation as to how such discrepancies and that too on such a large scale, occurred. No satisfactory explanation could be furnished by either of them. The successful candidates, who were duly represented by their Counsel, were also asked to verify the discrepancies, which were apparent on the face of the record and after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the ad hoc appointees, who had challenged the termination order and were seeking regularization, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the writ petitions recording large number of findings of fact including the following:

(3.) All these Special Appeals have been filed challenging the aforesaid findings of fact. Special Appeal No. 614 of 2006 has been filed by the 17 selected candidates for the post of Clerks, whose appointments have been quashed by the learned Single Judge holding that there had been irregularity in awarding marks to them. Special Appeal No. 615 of 2006 has been filed by three duly selected candidates, whose appointment orders have been quashed by the learned Single Judge, though recording a finding of fact that there has been no irregularity or illegality in awarding the marks to them. But as there was irregularity of a very high magnitude, their appointments could not be saved. Special Appeal No. 616 of 2006 has been filed by the Stenographers, whose appointments have been quashed by the impugned judgment and order. Special Appeal No. 640 of 2006 has been filed by the then District Judge upon whom a cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was also imposed upon the Chairman of the Selection Committee, but he has not filed any appeal against the said order. Special Appeal No. 730 of 2006 has been filed by an ad hoc appointee whose claim for regularisation is also to be considered.