KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHJAHNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel refers to Rule 7 (2) of the Rules For Recruitment of Ministerial Stall' of the Subordinate Officers 1950 and contends that according thereto no one who has not been selected according to sub-Rule (1) shall be appointed to any vacancy unless the list of selected candidate is exhausted. The select list, it is submitted was drawn on March 6th 1985 The petitioner is placed at SI. No. 34 of this list. 1 he appointments given are to the first 23 only. It is not in dispute that during the period of one year commencing from the date when this select list was drawn there was no appointment officiating or otherwise available to the petitioner. Rule 14 (3) and with second proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 lays down that if any such candidate has not been given appointment on officiating chance or otherwise during one year from the date when the list is drawn, his name shall stand removed automatically.

(2.) The 1950 Rules in themselves do not provide as to when the select list is to be considered as exhausted. Rule 7 (2) thereof has to be read conjointly with Rule 14 (3) and the second proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the 1947 Rules in order that the interpretation placed is harmoneous. It is of considerable significance in this connection that in the case of Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, AIR 1986 SC 1043 relied for the petitioner, the Supreme Court laid down that the Rule, 1950 supersede Rule 9 to 12 of 1947 Rules and the Appendix II attached thereto In so far as Rules 14 (3) or the second proviso to Rule 15 (2) are concerned, the Supreme Court does not hold that they as well stand superseded (See Paragraph 17 of the report.) This is clearly because Rule 14(3) or the second proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the 1947 Rules are not rendered inconsistent by whatever is provided in the 1950 Rules. A reference in this connection may also be made to the recent decision in Satyendra Prasad Sharma and others Vs. District Judge Gazipur and others, [Writ Petition No. 5434 of 1986 dated 5-11-1986 by a Division Bench of which one of us] Honourable B. D. Agrawal, J.) was a member (Reported in 1987 UPLBEC 56 (DB)]. In other words this Rule 14 (3) read with second proviso to Rule 15 (2) of the 1947 Rules are alive still despite the amendments made in other respects by the subsequent 1950 Rules and, therefore since there was no officiating or other chance available to the petitioner during the period of one year his name is to be treated as removed automatically.

(3.) A submission was then also made to the effect that the candidate placed at SI. No. 24 in the select list has been given appointment by the District Judge on Aug. 1st 1986. We do not find it slated anywhere in the petition that that candidate had not got an officiating or other chance during the relevant period of one year commencing from May 6th, 1985. In the absence of any such averment made it cannot be claimed that the case of the petitioner is at par in material respects with that of the other candidate.