SANDEEP MOHAN JOHRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the petitioner Sandeep Mohan Johri way back in the year 1996 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint him on the post of L.D.C. and the appointment of Respondents No. 3 to 8 may be quashed and set aside. Further prayer is that the State be directed to delete words and figures '31' from the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1986') and increase the upper age limit up to 33 years instead of 31 years for appointment on the aforesaid post and take appropriate steps to suitably amend Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 in this behalf. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC, albeit on ad-hoc basis, under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on administrative side, therefore, the petitioner got the writ petition amended and inserted additional prayer seeking direction to Respondent No. 2, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur to regularize his services on the post of L.D.C. from the date of his initial appointment on ad-hoc basis i.e. on 20.10.1997 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur issued an advertisement on 06.10.1993 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment on the post of L.D.C. The petitioner also submitted application for his appointment. Written examination for the said post was held on 12.12.1993. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and was declared pass. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in type test, which was held on 23.10.1994. Final result was declared on 09.01.1995. A panel of 42 candidates was prepared in which name of the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 40. Respondent No. 2, in the first instance, issued appointment order in favour of 25 candidates in the month of January, 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 2, thereafter in July 1995 issued appointment order in favour of three candidates out of the select list so prepared and then issued appointment order to 10 more candidates on 02.01.1996 also. Candidates appearing at Serial No. 26 to 38 were thus appointed and there remained only four candidates in the select list who could not be appointed. In the meantime, one Rajesh Jaif, who was working in Dausa Judgeship was transferred to Jaipur District Judgeship vide order dated 13.10.1995. Thereafter, one Gajendra Singh, who was working in Tonk Judgeship was transferred to Jaipur District Judgeship vide order dated 07.10.1995 and one Dharmendra Singh Parmar, who was posted in Tonk Judgeship, was transferred to Jaipur District Judgeship vide order dated 02.08.1995.

(3.) Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has at the out set submitted that he does not press the prayer clause (d) and (e) with regard to amendment in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986. Therefore, consideration of the writ petition may be confined to rest of the prayers. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the posts so advertised were required to be filled up during the validity of the select list and therefore, instead of transferring LDCs from other districts, the candidates remaining in the select list ought to have been offered appointment. It is submitted that action of the respondent no. 2 in transferring the candidates from other judgeship was contrary to the specific circulars of the High Court dated 21.01.1976 and 07.07.1997. Learned counsel has placed for perusal of the Court recent circular issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on 06.02.2014 reiterating the same conditions. It is contended that aggrieved by the action of the respondent no. 2, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court on 05.09.1997. The Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 09.09.1997 called for the report from Respondent No. 2, who in turn sent the report on 22.09.1997 conveying that all the three transfers were made by his predecessor District Judge without keeping in mind the fact of currency of the select list. If had these three transfers were not made, the petitioner had a chance of appointment. Subsequently, however, the petitioner having approached the age of 31 years became over age, therefore, he was not offered appointment. However, the District Judge recommended that the minimum age of 31 years is required to be enhanced to 33 years at par with the upper age applicable to the appointees of the other departments of the Government of Rajasthan. It was thereafter, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 17.10.1997 directed that if there was any vacancy available, the petitioner may be considered for appointment on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner was accordingly appointed on the post of LDC on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 20.10.1997 for a period of three months subject to the condition that his services were liable to be terminated if his services were not found to be satisfactory or any otherwise order is passed in the writ petition filed by him before this Court. It is contended that in this manner the petitioner is continuously discharging his duty with the respondents for the last 17 years. Respondents also appointed Kamal Kumar Sharma and Saurabh Sharma at S.No. 41 and 42 of the panel, on ad-hoc basis on 20.04.1996, much after expiry of the select panel. Had all those three illegal transfers not been made and select list operated in time, the petitioner would have secured appointment within the age of 31 years. Expiry of select list cannot be made basis of defeating right of appointment of the petitioner.