- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-10-1999 of a learned single Judge by which the C. M, Writ Peti tion No. 109 of 1999 filed by the appellants was dismissed.
(2.) AN office memorandum was issued by the Allahabad High Court on 24-11- 1998 inviting applications for making recruitment to the post of Bench Secretary Grade II from such assistants of the Court who had put in not less than 10 years con tinuous service on 1-12-1998 in Class III cadre. The selection was to be made on the basis of a competitive examination and in terview. The appellants, Shatrughan Tripathi and Kamlakar Dwivedi, who were working as Lower Division Assistants, made applications for the post but their candida ture was rejected on the ground that they had not put in 10 years' continuous service in Class III cadre. The appellants then filed the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal in which an interim order was passed on 8-1-1999 that they should be allowed to appear in the examinations but their result shall not be declared. The petitioners appeared in the ex amination and, thereafter, moved an applica tion praying that their results be declared. The writ petition was thereafter heard and, on the finding that their experience in Class III cadre fell short of the essential requirement of 10 years, and that they were not eligible for appearing in the examination held for promotion to the post of Bench Secretary Grade II, it was dismissed. The selection and appointment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade II is governed by the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Rule 8 of the Rules lays down the source of recruitment to various Class III posts in the estab lishment, and sub-rule (e), which relates to the post in question, reads as follows: (e) Bench Secretaries Grade II- By selec tion throgh competitive examination con ducted by the appointing authority open to the assistants having not less than 10 years' con tinuous service in class III posts. Preference shall be given to candidates possessing a Law Degree". The office memorandum laid down the same conditions viz. that the can didates should have put in not less than 10 years' continuous service in Class III post on 1-12-1998. The petitioners were admit tedly appointed in 1989, and had put in less than 10 years' continuous service in Class III post by the date fixed. Consequently, they did not meet the essential qualifica tion for being considered for appointment on the post of Bench Secretary Grade II.
(3.) THE appellant No. 2 who argued in person for both the appellants, has sub mitted that the appellants appeared in the examination for making recruitment to the post of Routine Grade Assistants in the year 1988 and in the merit list names figured at SI. Nos. 71 and 75, respectively and though 100 selected candidates came to be appointed as Routine Grade Assis tants in the year 1988 itself, but the appel lants were given appointment in 1989 on the basis of the some merit list. It has been contended that if the appellants had been given appointments in 1988 along with other successful candidates who were much lower in the merit list, they would have completed 10 years' continuous ser vice in Class III post as on 1-12-1998. It has been further urged that the reservations rules were not properly followed and the rostering was wrongly done and as a conse quence thereof the persons who had secured lower rank in merit, like SI. Nos. 239, 258 and 270 in the merit list prepared in the year 1988 were given appointment prior to the appellants. THE contention is that the appel lants ought to have been appointed in 1988 and therefore they should be treated to be eligible for the post in question. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in the writ petition it is averred that the candidates who had secured rank at SI. Nos. 239,258 and 270 in the merit list were Scheduled Caste and on account of rostering they came to be appointed in the year 1988 itself. It is further pleaded that sub- rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Rules as it existed in 1988 provided that in case of typists a separate merit list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination, interview and type test. The proviso to Rule 13 (I) as it ex isted at the relevant time laid down that in case of Routine Grade Assistants and typists a combined list shall be prepared by taking candidates alternatively, the first name being from the list of Routine Grade Assistant, and in accordance with the aforesaid rules, two separate lists were prepared in respect of recruitment held in the year 1988 and, thereafter, a combined list based on rostering of the selected can didates was prepared, giving adequate rep resentation to general categories and reserved categories. By an amendment dated 27-10-1989, sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 and proviso to Rule 13 (1) have been deleted. However, the appointment of the appellants had been made prior to 27-10- 1989 in accordance with the proviso to Rule 13 (1) and as a result of rostering the names of the appellants did not find place in the first list of 100 candidates.;