P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the District Judge, Mahoba .
(3.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are: (a) An advertisement was issued by the Office of District Judge, Mahoba on 17.08.2000 inviting applications for appointment of Class IV posts of Process Server, Orderly, Peon and Farrash in the pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- in District Judgeship, Mahoba mentioning that the selections are to be made for the purposes of preparation of a wait list. The advertisement did not mention the details or number of posts for which the advertisement was issued. The Appellants herein applied for the said posts. After interview, a select list was prepared on 19.09.2000 mentioning 22 names and the Appellants were placed at S. Nos. 9, 10 and 11. Subsequent to the result, appointments were made as and when the vacancies arose. Appointment orders were issued to the Appellants on 13.08.2001. The total sanctioned strength of Class IV employees in the Judgeship of Mahoba on the date of advertisement was 31. In 2001, 4 more posts were created in the Judgeship of Mahoba for the outlying Court in Tehsil Charkhari. For the said newly created posts, the appointment letters were issued to the Appellants herein on 13.08.2001. In the meantime, one Court of Addl. District Judge was transferred from Hamirpur to Mahoba increasing the sanctioned strength of Class IV employees in Mahoba to 37 including the outlying Court of Charkhari. (b) On 19.09.2003, the District Judge, Mahoba passed an order that as per the provisions of G. Os. dated 27.02.1974 (Personnel), 29.07.1995 (Personnel and administrative Reforms Department, U.P. Government) and order dated 23.01.1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Ram Babu etc., the panel made of Class IV employees is valid for a period of one year, and thus, the appointments made after 19.09.2001 are ad hoc. He also cancelled the select list/wait list forthwith. On the basis of the said order, the appointments of the Appellants were treated as ad hoc. (c) Alleging arbitrary appointments, promotions and discrimination in appointments, several writ petitions were filed which were disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 26.10.2005. However, the Appellants herein were not party to the said writ petitions, therefore, they filed a separate Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 49006 of 2003 against the order dated 19.09.2003 passed by the District Judge, Mahoba. The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order 02.07.2007, dismissed the writ petition. Against the said order, a special appeal being S.A. No. 1004 of 2007 was filed by the Appellants herein before the High Court which was also dismissed by the High Court on 08.08.2007 in terms of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2005 in C.M.W.P. No. 34640 of 2003 Murari Lal Pandey v. District Judge, Mahoba and Ors. wherein the High Court had held as follows: ...A fair and reasonable interpretation of Rule 12 in the light of the aforesaid judgment is that the wait list should not be drawn for more than twice the number of anticipated vacancies in the recruitment year, and should come to an end as soon as the last vacancy on the date of advertisement is filled up. It is always open to the District Judge to anticipate the vacancies due to superannuation or likely promotion, but having determined number of vacancies, for which the advertisement is made, and drawing a wait list of equal number of candidates he is not permitted under the Rules to go on appointing persons from the wait list on unanticipated vacancies. Any other interpretation will only give rise to serious irregularities as in the present case, and will also violate the rights of those persons, who become eligible in the meantime for being considered for such vacancies in future. In pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2007, the District Judge, Mahoba informed the Appellants by letter dated 12.11.2007 that their services came to an end with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave petition. ;