Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Smt. Anita Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Veer Singh for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Though the case was called in the revised list but none has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1.
(2.) FIVE petitioners working as Class IV employees in District Judgeship Ghaziabad have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23rd January, 1990/5th February, 1990 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) laying down minimum criteria for promotion to Class III post from the employees working in Class IV. It has also sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider petitioners for promotion as Class III employee on the basis of select list (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The case of petitioners is that they had completed more than eight years of service as Class IV employee in Ghaziabad Judgship. Petitioner No. 1 was working as Daftari and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were Aradali attached with different courts in Judgeship. The promotion of Class IV to Class III employees is governed by Government Order dated 1.1.1970 whereunder quota was 10% which got increased to 15% vide Government Order dated 31stAugust, 1982. In the year 1987, there were six vacancies of Clerks liable to be filled in by promotion from Class IV employees. A selection test was held on 2nd February, 1987 wherein petitioners and some other participated and petitioners were declared successful. A copy of the select list dated 6.4.1988 is Annexure 2 wherein petitioners at serial No. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In fact it appears that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 secured similar marks hence were shown 5th in merit and 7 and 8 also secured same marks hence shown 6th in merit. The District Judge, however, promoted only respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on ad hoc basis hence the petitioners made representations claiming their promotions also. It further says that two promotions were made beyond select list and representations were made on 8th June, 1987 and 9th September, 1988. Later on the respondents hold a general test on 28th and 29th January, 1989 in which petitioners did not appear since they had already appeared in the selection test and were successful therein. They continued to make their representations claiming promotion. It is said that later on after receiving some report from Nazarat, District Judge passed an order on 5th February, 1990 stating that applicants may appear in examination if they want to be considered for promotion. This nullify the earlier selection list, therefore, - petitioners have come up to this Court challenging report of Nazarat, on which District Judge passed the order dated 5th February, 1990.
(3.) A supplementary counter-affidavit sworn on 9th March, 1992 by Sri Har Nath Singh the then Civil Judge was also filed stating that mere placement in select list does not confer any right to claim promotion and that petitioners cannot claim selection and appointment since they have to wait for their chance in future as there is no vacancy in existence. On behalf of respondent No. 1, a counter-affidavit has been filed sworn by Sri Har Nath Singh Sengar, Vlth Addl. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, admitting that no automatic promotion from Class IV to Class III is permissible but a Class IV employee, on completion of 5 years service, may be considered after selection test for promotion to Class III post. No examination of Class IV employee for promotion to Class III was held on 2nd February, 1987 but in fact it was held on 2.12.1987 and the merit list was issued on 6.4.1988. So far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, it is said that they appeared in a test held on 6th June, 1987 wherein they obtained more than 50% marks and were declared successful hence appointed by the then District Judge vide order dated 6th June, 1987 on the basis of the said result. Respondent No. 4, it is said, was promoted by the then District Judge vide order dated 27th August, 1987. On the application of petitioners, the Officer Incharge, Nazarat was directed to hold examination giving due information to all concerned employees. The petitioners did not raise any protest while appearing in examination held on 2.12.1987 and there was no occasion to ask petitioners to appear in the fresh test. Rest of the matters, as stated in the writ petition, are not denied. But it is said that order dated 23rd January, 1990 and 5th February, 1990 are correct. It is said that discretion to fix minimum standard forjudging suitability of candidates is of District Judge and petitioners were not entitled to get promotion within select list dated 6.4.1988. It is also said that some vacancies are lying which are to be filled in by holding fresh selection.;