PRAVAS KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. P.K.Prasad assisted by Miss Deolina Sen, submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents. He further submitted that the necessary parties to the writ petition have not been joined therefore, the writ petition is bad on account of nonjoinder of parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha appearing for few of the respondents submitted that the Rules of 2001, speaks of only appointment on the post of Additional District Judge and this should mean the temporary posts as well and since the respondents were appointed against the temporary posts of A.D.J., Fast Track Courts, they should be considered to be valid as the selection was made pursuant to the advertisement issued in May, 2001. He further emphasized that in Rule 25 of the Rules, 2001 the temporary appointment has been referred and at best it can be said that his clients are the temporary appointees and therefore they should be regularized in terms of Rule 25. The Rule is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :