RAMAKANT CHOUDHARY Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KEEPING in view the similitude of the factual matrix involved and the issues of law raised in these appeals, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this composite order. Be it noted, as the facts are similar, the learned Single Judge adverted to the same in a common compartment and passed the main order in W. P. No. 5131/2005 (S) and accordingly we shall refer to the factual matrix in commonality except where specific reference is necessitous.

(2.) THE appellants had submitted applications in the office of District and Sessions judge, Guna seeking appointment pursuant to an advertisement issued vide annexure-A/1 for the post of Process Writer (Assistant Grade-Ill ). The recruitment was for filling up of seven posts. Out of the seven posts of Process writers, one post was reserved for scheduled caste candidate, one post for scheduled tribe, one post for OBC category and four posts for general candidates. The petitioner in W. P. No. 5131/05 (S) submitted application for appointment to a post reserved for scheduled caste candidate, the petitioner in WP. No. 5133/05 (S)sought appointment as a general category candidate and Anand Suryavanshi, the petitioner in W. P. No. 5132/05 (S), as OBC candidate. It was contended before the learned single Judge that all the petitioners had appeared in the written test and being found successful, they were called to appear in the interview held on 26. 9. 2004. Thereafter, the District and Sessions Judge, Guna instead of issuing appointment orders, despite the selection of the candidates, forwarded the selection proceeding and the select list for approval of the High Court in accordance with the administrative and executive instructions in that regard.

(3.) WHEN the matter came to the High Court, certain formalities were sought to be complied with but eventually, the petitioners were not appointed.