V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) An advertisement was issued on 29.11.1992 by the Registrar, High Court, Allahabad for recruitment of Routine Grade Clerks on 90 existing vacancies and 150 vacancies which were likely to occur till 1995. The petitioners who were eligible for appointment as Routine Grade Clerk applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26.11.1992. Mohammad Arif was allotted roll No. 2864 and Nishith Kumar Srivastava was allotted roll No. 4770. In the written examination held on 9.1.1994, the petitioners were declared successful. A communication was sent to them that typing test would be held on 1.3.1994 and interview on 2.3.1994. They appeared in typing test and interview. The result of final selection was declared on 20.3.1994 and a select list of 232 candidates was published. The petitioners were not selected. A waiting list of 108 candidates was prepared. However, in the waiting list of general category candidates Mohammad Arif was at serial No. 1 and Nishith Kumar Srivastava was at serial No. 1 of sportmen quota. It is stated that in the select list, the last candidate Pratima Sonkar who was at serial No. 232, Joined on 6.5.1999. Both the petitions have been filed claiming appointment as Routine Grade Clerk against the unfilled vacancies of 1992 examination.
(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the entire select list of 232 candidates exhausted on 6.1.1999. No one from the waiting list was offered appointment. The Chief Justice has initiated process for the next selection of 135 vacancies which included existing vacancies and vacancies which were likely to occur till 2001 as resolved in meeting dated 7.10.1999. An advertisement has also been issued in newspapers Pioneer on 7.11.1999, Dainik Jagaran on 8.11.1999, Employment News on 27.11.1999 and Kanpur Ujala on 30.11.1999. Paragraph 15 of the writ petition was replied in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit giving details about joining and non-joining of candidates. It mentions name of Vidya Nand Tripathi, roll No. 67 as not joined but subsequently he was issued appointment letter in view of order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 3.11.1999.
(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent filed a supplementary counter-affidavit mentioning therein in detail as to when the vacancies occurred and how the appointments were made from the select list. It has been explained that the respondent estimated 90 vacancies were existing and 150 vacancies were likely to occur in future till 31.12.1995. Accordingly, advertisement was issued on 29.11.1992. After the final select list was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 19.3.1994 and result was declared on 20.3.1994, it was found that only 75 vacancies and not 90 vacancies as advertised were existing till March, 1994 on which appointments could be made. Appointment letters were issued to 75 candidates in order of merit from the select list and all of them joined. After March. 1994 till December. 1995. 66 vacancies occurred. Out of which 62 vacancies were filled from the select list and two vacancies were filled under the dying-in-harness rules from the direct recruitment vacancies. Two vacancies remained unfilled. Rule 10 (4) of The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules. 1976 (in brief rules), provides that the life of the select list is three years or till the next selection is held, whichever is earlier. Since the select list was approved on 19.3.1994, therefore, it was valid till 18.3.1997. During 1996-97, 36 vacancies occurred and by adding two vacancies which were of 1995 and remained unfilled, the total vacancies available were 38. From these 38 vacancies, 31 candidates were appointed from the select list and 10 candidates were appointed under the dying-in-harness rules from the direct recruitment vacancies which occurred during 1996 to March. 1997. Though only 38 vacancies were available to be filled by direct recruitment between 1996 to March. 1997 and the respondent appointed 31 candidates from the select list and 10 candidates under the dying-in-harness rules, total 41 candidates, therefore, appointment of three candidates under the dying-in-harness rules was in excess of the vacancies and these three vacancies were to be adjusted in the vacancies which were to occur subsequently. Since the respondent could not make the next selection of Routine Grade Clerks, therefore, Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 18.3.1997 exercising powers, under Rule 45 passed an order on 18.3.1997 that the select list will be followed till the next selection is made. After March. 1997 till February, 1999. 40 vacancies were available and after adjusting three vacancies on which candidates were appointed in excess under the dying- in-harness rules, only 37 vacancies were available for appointment which occurred till 15.2.1999 and were to be filled by direct recruitment. Out of these 37 vacancies. 32 appointments were made from the select list and 7 appointments were made under the dying-in-harness rules, therefore, two candidates were appointed in excess of the vacancies available which were to be adjusted in future vacancies. In paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter-affidavit, it was explained that Vidya Nand Tripathi was issued appointment letter initially along with 62 candidates in 1994. He did not Join. But subsequently he has been allowed to join as a special case by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the condition that he will be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the merit list. Vidya Nand Tripathi was issued appointment letter on 3.11.1999 and he joined on 30.11.1999. It was also stated that though the advertisements provided that 90 vacancies were existing and 150 vacancies were likely to occur till 31.12.1995, whereas in fact only 75 vacancies were available till March, 1994 and 66 vacancies occurred till December, 1995. Therefore, there were only 140 vacancies available. Therefore, the select list should be treated to be valid only with regard to 140 vacancies which were available till December, 1995. And the remaining candidates in the select list shall be treated to be in the waiting list. The petitioner is not entitled to be appointed against future vacancies and the respondent did not make the second waiting list of 108 candidates operational in which the name of the petitioners find place. The respondent has stated that no vacancies are available which could be offered to the petitioners.;