DINESH KUMAR PANEY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Gupta Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite of the case having been taken in the revised list, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The order dated 11.5.1992, passed by the District Judge, Ballia (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition) has given rise to the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.5.1992. He petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work with Sri Moti Lal, IV Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ballia where the petitioner was working or to any other person as District Judge considers proper and not to cease the petitioner to work on the basis of the impugned order.

(3.) The petitioner claims to have been selected in a written test and interview conducted by a selection committee constituted by the respondent District Judge, Ballia in 1990 and regularized with effect from 3.12.1990. Prior to the above selection the Government Order dated 4.8.1990 created 85 temporary posts of Stenographers in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 for Munsif Magistrates. It appears that the High Court by letter dated 6.9.1990 requested the Government to create more number of posts since number of Munsif Magistrates, Judicial Magistrates, Railway Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates was 228 besides Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrates and Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, whose list was provided to the Government. The then District Judge on his own taking note of the said Government Order dated 4.8.1990 proceeded to engage Stenographers, appointed the petitioner initially on ad hoc basis and attached him with Sri Moti Lal, IV Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Ballia. Thereafter he held a selection as said above and made the petitioner regular with effect from 3.12.1990. Vide impugned order dated 11.5.1992, the District Judge has directed the petitioner to cease to work on the ground that there is no order of High Court for providing facility of stenographer to Sri Moti Lal and a few other Munsif Magistrates working in the Ballia Judgeship. It is this order whereby the petitioner has ceased to work which is under challenge.