- (1.) THIS writ petition relates to a service matter.
(2.) THE petitioners Raj Kishore Misra and Surendra Pratap Singh were appointed clerks in the office of the Antarim Zila Pari shad, Unnao, in the years 1961 and 1963 respectively and they were confirmed after a year in each case. When the U. P. Kshet-tra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961 came into force they became the ser vants of the Zila Parishad, Unnao under the provisions of Section 46 of the said Act. The case of the petitioners is that two posts of Kar Nirikshaks were created on 29-7-1965 by the Zila Parishad Unnao (Opposite Party No. 1) in exercise of the power con ferred by Section 39 of the Act. Peti tioner No. 1 who was earlier working in the education section was transferred by the Mukhya Adhikari of the Zila Parishad (Opposite Party No. 3) to the main office of the Parishad and was given, in addition to his duties as a clerk, the duties of Kar Nirikshak. This was under order dated 4-7-68, copy of which is Annexure T to the writ petition. Petitioner No. 2 was transfer red under an order dated 29-8- 1967 to the post of Kar Nirikshak. Both were thus working as Kar Nirikshaks and getting Rs. 75-/p.m. by way of travelling allow ances in addition to then: salaries as clerks. The appointment order (Annex-lire 1) relating to petitioner No. 1 shows that his appointment as Kar Nirikshak was tem porary. It is not in controversy that peti tioner No. 2 was also temporarily working as Kar Nirikshak. There was a regular selection for the two posts and in terms of Section 39 of the Act relating to the method of appointment to posts carrying an initial pay from Rs. 40/-, a selection committee interviewed some outsiders and some existing employees of the Zila Parishad including the petitioners for the two posts of Kar Nirikshaks. The petitioners were not select ed. On the other band, two outsiders who have been impleaded as Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition, were se lected by the selection committee and were appointed by the Adyaksha. The petitioners have challenged in the writ petition the selec tion and appointment of Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 on the two posts of Kar Nirikshaks. The grounds for the challenge are firstly, that the selection committee was not duly constituted according to the provi sions of Section 45 of the Act and, further that outsiders could not be recruited when suitable persons were available out of the existing servants of the Zila Parishad The constitution of the selection committee has been challenged on two grounds. One is that the term of Sri Kripa Shanker Shukla (Opposite Party Na 4), who had been nomi nated by the Karya Samiti to be a member of the Chunao Samiti, had come to an end on the expiry of one year from the date of his nomination and he was, therefore, in competent to sit in the Chunao Samiti. The other is that instead of the- head of the de partment, for which the appointment is to be made, the Mukhya Adhikari of the Zila Parishad sat in the selection committee and acted as its secretary. According to the petitioners the two posts belonged to the Tax Department and the Kar Adhikari should have taken his seat as a member and secre tary of the Chunao Samiti while selecting persons for the two posts of Kar Nirikshaks.
(3.) THE writ petition has been con tested by Opposite Party No. 1 on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed and by Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6 who have filed a common counter-affidavit. The peti tioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit of Opposite Parties Nos. 5 and 6. In the counter-affidavit of Opposite Party No. 1, it has been stated that though Sri Kripa Shanker Opposite Party No. 4, was nominated one of the members of the Chunao Samiti in 1967 but his term did not come to an end automatically on the expiry of one year from that date and he continu ed to be a member in the absence of a fresh nomination, there being no term fixed by the Karya Samiti in nominating Sri Shukla. It has also been said that the Hindi version of the Act does not provide for annual nomination. Sri Shukla was further again nominated on 30-7-1969. It has next been asserted that there is no Kar Adhikari in the Zila Parishad Unnao and that the Mukhya Adhikari acts also as the Kar Adhi kari as he is the head of Samanya Vibhag including the Kar and Accounts Depart ment. He is, therefore, said to have legally been a member of the Chunao Samiti for the selection in question and rightly acted as a member and secretary.;