A.P.Sahi - (1.) THESE two writ petitions relate to a dispute concerning Class-IV appointments in the District judgeship of Ghazipur. The matters were nominated to this Bench vide order dated 8.6.2005. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, therefore the matter is being proceeded with to be disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing in both the cases. I have heard Sri V.D.Chauhan for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 and Sri Vikas Budhwar for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. Sri Rajeev Gupta has been heard for the respondent High Court and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 Rajesh Kumar, Brijesh Kumar Srivastava and Chandrama Ram are the respondent Nos. 12,13 and 14 in the Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. In view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed it is not necessary to further await any notices on respondent Nos. 4 to 11,15 and 16 in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008. The first Writ Petition of 2005 has been filed questioning the order dated 24.5.2005 whereby the three petitioners therein have been informed that their services along the services of Anurag Srivastava (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44146 of 2008) are no longer required, as Court Nos. 1 and 2 namely the N.D.P.S.Courts in the District Judgeship have been abolished. Subsequently on a representation made by Anurag Srivastava and on a direction issued by the Honourable Administrative Judge to consider his representation, the then District Judge re-engaged Anurag Srivastava. It is at this stage that the three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 44390 of 2005 challenged the order of termination primarily on the ground that it was passed without any notice or opportunity and that it had been passed on erroneous assumptions of facts as the petitioners were working in the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. Ghazipur and hence reference to the N.D.P.S. Court was unwarranted and thirdly the learned District Judge had re-engaged Anurag Srivastava whose services had been simultaneously terminated. Hence the petitioners were discriminated. The said writ petition was entertained and the following order was passed on 9.6.2005: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amit Sthalkar for respondents 1 and 3. Learned Standing counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 24.5.2005 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) whereby the services of the petitioners alongwith the services of Shri Anurag Kumar Srivastava have been dispensed with on the ground that since the N.D.P.S. Courts 1 and 2 have been abolished w.e.f. 12.5.2005, the services of the petitioners are no more required. The allegation of the petitioners is that they were appointed on ad hoc basis and have continued since the year 2001 and that they were not appointed for the N.D.P.S.Courts and, as such, the very foundation of the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption. It has been further alleged that the District Judge, Ghazipur has retained Sri Anurag Kumar Srivastava after passing of the impugned order, vide order dated 30.5.2005. A perusal of the order dated 30.5.2005 indicates that the services of Sri Anurag Srivastava have been retained for further period of one year against the vacancy in a Fast Track Court. A perusal of facts stated in para 20 of the writ petition further discloses that the five persons, who were appointed much after the appointment of the petitioners, are still being retained in service on ad hoc basis. The petitioners, who are admittedly senior to the persons, referred to in para 20, have been removed from services for no valid reasons. It is thus obvious that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption which amounts to hostile and invidious discrimination for which the District Judge, Ghazipur shall furnish an explanation by filing his personal affidavit in this regard. It is further directed that a copy of this order alongwith the report of the District Judge, Ghazipur shall be placed before the Administrative Judge of the Judgeship concerned for appropriate action in the matter, inasmuch as in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of District & Sessions Judge, Baghpatv. Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava and others, 2005(1) ESC 724 (AII)(DB), under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, such matters may be taken note of and appropriate orders can be passed under the aforesaid provisions by the Honourable Administrative Judge as he has complete supervisory control not only over the Judgeship concerned but also over the matters pertaining to the ministerial and Class IV staff attached with the said Judgeship. At this stage, Sri Sthalkar has referred to the decision in the case of State of Haryana v. Suman Dutta, (2000) 10 SCC 311, in support of his submission to the effect that this Court should not interfere with the termination order as any interim order will amount to grant of final relief at this state. Having examined the contentions of the parties and the facts, as brought out herein above, it is obvious that the services of the petitioners are very much required in view of the fact that the juniors to the petitioners and Shri Anurag Srivastava whose services have also been dispensed with alongwith the petitioners, have been retained by the order of the District Judge himself. The aforesaid facts, therefore, clearly go in favour of the petitioners and,as such, the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case and it is, accordingly provided that the operation of order dated 24.5.2005, in so far as it relates to the dispensation of the services of the petitioners, shall remain stayed and it is further provided that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with so long as juniors to the petitioners have been retained in service. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks and the matter shall be listed on 10th July, 2005."
(3.) A counter-affidavit was filed in the said writ petition and in para 23 thereof the then District Judge, Ghazipur has averred that the petitioners were not entitled to any show cause or opportunity of hearing prior to their termination as they were appointed purely on ad hoc basis and no procedure had been followed for their appointments as prescribed in Rule 4(2) of the UP. Subordinate Civil Courtlnferior Establishment, Rules 1955. In para 24 of the same counter-affidavit, it was pointed out that Anurag Srivastava was not junior to the petitioners and that it was in order to meet out the urgency of the functioning of the Fast Track Court that Anurag Srivastava was considered for accommodation as a peon, as there was no sufficient time to make regular appointments on the post of peons in the Fast Track Court. The District Judge further indicated that he was ready to consider the candidature of the petitioners in future against available vacancies. After the aforesaid counter-affidavit was filed this Court taking notice of the same found discrepancies as admitted by the District Judge himself and as such the Registrar (Confidential) of this Court was commanded to hold an inquiry and submit a report keeping in view of the aforesaid averments contained in the counter- affidavit of the District Judge. The order dated 24.8.2005 is quoted below: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikram D.Chauhan and Sri Amit Sthalekar for the respondents No. 1 and 3. While entertaining this petition, I passed a detailed order dated 10.7.2005. A counter-affidavit sworn by District Judge Ghazipur has been filed. It is admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were appointed against the vacancies of S.C./ST. Act Courts While passing the order on 10.7.2005, this Court took notice of the fact that one Sri Anurag Srivastava, whose services had been dispensed with and who he was re-engaged later on, was junior to the petitioner and as such this Court passed the order permitting the petitioners to continue and not to dispense with their services. Sri Sthalekar has invited the attention of the Court towards para 24 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that the District Judge is ready to consider the candidature of the petitioner in future against the future vacancies. The re engagement of Anurag Srivastava has been justified on the basis of order of the Honourable Administrative Judge. The manner in which the appointments had been resorted, indicates that the ad hoc appointments are being resorted to without reference to the Rules and the judicial pronouncement of this Court. The Registrar General either himself or through Registrar Confidential is, therefore, directed to hold an enquiry in respect of the ad hoc appointments of class IV employees in the Judgeship Ghazipur and submit a report keeping in view the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the District Judge filed in the present writ petition. The said enquiry shall be completed within a period of six weeks and report shall be placed before this Court by the next date fixed. It has been stated in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit that even though the petitioners have been re-engaged after passing of the interim order, but were not paid their salary The District Judge, Ghazipur is directed to ensure the payment of salary to the petitioners till the matter is finally disposed of by this Court. List after expiry of six weeks." ;