B HARI BABU Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were applicants to the posts of attender in the unit of the District Judge, Kurnool. They applied pursuant to the notification issued in October, 1996 but they were not selected. It is the case of the petitioner in writ petition No. 188847/98 that he worked as a temporary attender between 16-3-1995 and 11-3-1996 continuously excepting for breaks of one day in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of II Class (Railways), Nandyal. A service certificate issued by the Magistrate has been filed. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18867/98 is that he worked as a temporary process server/ attender between 10-3-1995 and 11-3-1996 continuously excepting for breaks of one day in the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Pattikonda. A service certificate issued by the Magistrate has been filed. The petitioners seek a direction to appoint them as attenders in future vacancies on a consideration of their past service. In other words, the petitioners do not want reopening of the selections already made.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners did not work continuously for 90 days and the petitioners' names were in fact included in the 'C' list i.e., the list of candidates who served for not less than 90 days. They could not be selected on account of low marks they obtained in the interview. The learned Counsel for the petitioners expresses an apprehension that in view of the short breaks in service, they may not be treated as candidates having put in 90 days continuous service for the purpose of preferential consideration. In order to dispel this apprehension, it is sufficient to direct that in case the petitioners apply for the post of attender pursuant to the future notification that may be issued in the unit of the District Judge, Kumool, they should be treated as candidates having put in continuous service between the aforementioned periods. We are giving this direction for the reason that the gap of one day spread over four spells of their engagement for 89 days, is nothing but an artificial break and such artificial break is liable to be ignored. It is further directed that in case any necessity should arise to engage some candidates as attenders on ad hoc or contingent basis, due preference shall be given to the petitioners for having' worked previously for almost one year provided they are suitable for the job required.

(3.) With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.