- (1.) We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vishnu Shankar Gupta for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State and Sri Yashwant Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the High Court. In all the above Special Appeals common question of law and facts are involved which relate to the legality of the selection of the class IVth employees in the Civil Court, Muzaffarnagar. Therefore, all the above Special Appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment.
(2.) The challenge in the aforesaid appeals is to the judgment and order dated 10.07.2006 passed by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38895 of 2004, A.K. Chaterjee v. Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32111 of 2004, Jagdish Chandra and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23795 of 2004, Mohd. Ausaf Ahmad Ansari and 20 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39960 of 2004, Bablu Choudhary v. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and 2 others respectively by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants.
(3.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present Special Appeals may in nutshell be stated as under: (i) The aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petitions related to the termination of the services of the petitioners-appellants who were appointed by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan who later on elevated to the bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan) as Class IVth employee in the Civil Court, Muzaffarnagar. The then District Judge in June 1998 initiated process for recruitment of class IVth employees as Process Servers, Orderly, Peons and Farrash in the Civil Court, Muzaffarnagar in accordance with the rules provided in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). He accordingly advertised the vacancies in the newspaper calling the applications by 15.6.1998 from the willing candidates to be appointed as Process Servers, Orderly, Peons and Farrash. The scheduled date of examination was fixed as 27.6.1998. The selection process included written examination as well as interview. As many as 461 candidates applied for the above posts, however only 327 candidates out of 461 candidates turned up and appeared in the written test. The District Judge thereafter on the basis of written test and interview prepared a select list of 39 candidates. The candidate from Serial No. 1 to 18 of the select list were given appointment by the then District Judge, Sri M.A. Khan. Thereafter candidates from Serial No. 21 to 28 of select list were given appointment by the subsequent Judge, Sri R.C. Pandey who too later on elevated to the bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Pandey). The candidates are Serial No. 19 and 20 were found to be overage. The select list from Serial No. 29 and onward was cancelled by Sri R.C. Pandey. (ii) A number of complaints were sent to the High Court regarding unfair selection of the candidates in the above examination. The High Court, prima facie, found that the appointment of the candidates were made by the District Judge in unfair manner and without following proper procedure provided under the rules. Consequently, the High Court Vide its letter No. 6753/VIIb-104 Admn "D" Section: dated 6.5.2004 directed the then District Judge, Muzaffarnagar to inquire into the matter and cancel the examination if the selection of candidates were found to be unfair and illegal. Consequently, Sri N.L. Saxena, the then District Judge, Muzaffarnagar inquired into the matter in great detail and found that the following irregularities were committed by the then District Judge in preparation of the select list: (i) (a) The applications received from the candidates were not properly indexed: nor were complete. (b) The application forms do not bear the date of receipt and signature of official receiving these forms and, therefore, it is not known when applications were received and by whom. (c) The register of applications also does not disclose the date on which these applications were received. (d) There is no indication that these applications were at all received in the office on or before the date fixed for the purpose. (ii) The applications were not scrutinized as there were no such indications. (iii) The candidates who appeared for the test were required to write an essay on "DUTIES OF A PEON". Many of them attempted to write such an essay. Some of the candidates, who were not selected, have written quite well and much better than the selected candidates. Some did not write essay yet were selected. (iv) No attendance-chart to show who and how many candidates appeared for the written test was prepared. (v) The answer-sheets were not checked or evaluated nor the District Judge got the answer-sheets examined and no marks were given on any of the answer-sheets (answer-books). (vi) Some of the selected candidate like Sri Bablu Chaudhary did not write anything on their answers-sheets and left them blank. (vii) No criteria or basis for selection was fixed or formed nor found from the records for preparation of Select List. (viii) No effort was made on record to verify the genuineness of the certificates of educational qualification or School Leaving Certificates of the candidates. (ix) There is nothing on record to show that any interview was taken by the District Judge. (x) There is also nothing on record to show that the character or antecedents of the selected candidates were got verified. (xi) The provision of Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules which further provides that the Character and antecedents of the selected candidates must be such so as to render him suitable in respect of Government employment and it will be the duty of the Appointing Authority to satisfy itself on this point, were also not followed. (xii) Even the provisions of Rules 11 of the aforesaid Rules which provides for preference to be given to a candidate, who has passed Junior High School or an equivalent examination and can read and write English character, was not followed. (xiii) Educational qualification of candidates preferential in nature, was not considered. (xiv) The select-list was prepared not on merits but arbitrarily without adopting any basis unfair, void and illegal.;