Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the State.
(2.) SIX weeks time is allowed to the respondents to file a detailed counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this case in the last week of August 2010.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not want to interfere with the process of advertisement and selection which may go on for recruitment of regular candidates or regularisation of the Daily Wagers. As far as petitioners are concerned, the Court is impressed that they were appointed in the year 2004. They had applied for the post of Routine Grade Clerks in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper. They faced written test, typing test and interview etc., i.e. all those proceedings which are required for the direct recruitment was followed. It is noteworthy that in the year 2004, there were no Service Rule regulating Services and Appointments of ministerial employees in the office of Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were put on the select list, they had undergone various tests required for the selection as Routine Grade Clerks, which is also not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General. Several posts were available in the said office. Due to increase of litigation with the High Court, several Clerks were required to handle the day to day work in the office of the Advocate General. The six petitioners have continued on their respective posts. Their work, conduct and performance has always found to be satisfactory and upto the mark since 2004. There appears to be nothing adverse or against the petitioners on the basis of which the Head of Department may remove them from services and infuse new blood in the body of the Office of the Advocate General, U.P. The whole exercise appears to be unnecessary and arbitrary.;