- (1.) A Division Bench of this Court while hearing the special appeal along with a bunch of writ petitions had formulated the following questions and referred the special appeal along with the connected writ petitions for decision by the Full Bench. The Division Bench made it clear that it would be open to the Full Bench to frame or reframe the questions formulated by the said Bench or it may frame new questions. "1. Whether a policy decision with regard to appointment of class III or class IV employees can be taken by the Chief Justice alone or by the Administrative Committee or by the Full Bench or by a committee authorised by the Chief Justice? 2. Since in Rule 4 for appointment on class IV posts namely, chowkidar, waterman, sweeper, etc. discretion has been conferred on the District Judge for making appointment, whether the discretion which is conferred on the District Judge by the rule making authority by means of legislation, can be taken away by the judicial pronouncement and as such even such posts should be filled by advertisement? 3. Whether the decision taken by the committee constituted by the Chief Justice, Administrative Committee or the Full Court is to operate prospectively or will apply retrospectively which would result in removal of all the employees on class III r class IV posts in the district judgeships who have been appointed without advertisement and have been regularized, whether such employees can be removed from service ? 4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ? 5. Whether engaging or appointing class IV employees on daily wages requires the advertisement?"
(2.) THE matter came up before a Full Bench on 20.08.2010, when the Full Bench was pleased to pass the following order: "Large number of writ petitions clubbed with each other having a further clubbing with certain special appeals are listed before the Bench. As large number of cases are listed that goes without saying that several counsel are present for either of the side. Al though, the case of Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, who appears in one of the special appeal No.468 of 2010 is not listed today, but he is present. We also heard his submission/ suggestion on various technical aspects. Sri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondents with other colleagues Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri K. M. Singh, learned Advocates besides other counsel from one side are present and at the same time Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Asthalekar, Sri S. P Singh, learned Advocates are also present on behalf of the High Court. During the course of the suggestion, it has come that in most of the writ petitions, pleadings (counter and rejoinder affidavits) have not been permitted to be exchanged so far and they are at initial stage. Fresh writs are to be heard and decided on the facts of their own. Submission of every learned Advocates is, that so far large number of writ petitions, listed, they being related to the selections/ appointments, termination in the District Courts either of class III or of Class IV posts, either in the regular Courts or in the Fast Track Court as the case may be, they need to be decided by learned Single Judge on the basis of their individual facts and as there is no decision, they may be detached from other cases,? referred before this Bench, as after decision of learned Single Judge, there may be another opportunity to either of the side to have their submission before a Bench (Division Bench). It has been further suggested that Special Appeals, which are against the order of the learned Single Judge, in which there are certain observations about powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, they may be permitted to be heard on the questions so posed/ observed/ referred. All concerned has submitted that if this is ensured by directing the office to list the matters accordingly, then hearing of the needed matter may be simplified and solution of the issue, which is before this Bench may be expedited. Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned Senior counsel further submits that in the Special Appeal No.65 of 2010, 63 of 2008, 68 of 2007, 1152 of 2007 and 595 of 2007 challenge is to the selection of the staff of the District Courts and the matter is to be decided by Division Bench and as such those questions are? not involved and therefore, these appeals may not be treated to be like other appeals in which, the appointments in this Court and the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice is under challenge. Here, it may be recalled that Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel also initially as noted above, informed the Court that in the Special Appeal filed by him, which is not listed today, the challenge is to the order of learned Single Judge in which the selection of Staff of the District Court is involved. On the mention of the facts by Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Advocate, who appears in writ petition No.6331 of 2010, it is clear that leaned Single Judge directed this matter to be listed with the records of Special Appeal No.65 of 2010 and 24 other writ petitions and it is thereafter, a Division Bench on 26.03.2010 directed this petition along other petitions noted above to be listed along with Special Appeal. At this stage, one of the facts as submitted by Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel may also be noted that against the order of learned Single Judge, if the matter is decide either way, right of Special Appeal may be there. The Bench having appreciated the suggestion/ submission of all concerned agrees that unless all the issues/questions which may lead to adjudication of facts also really arise may not be decided and therefore, proposes to direct the office to list the cases in the light of the directions, which are being given below. Accordingly, the office is directed to list only those Special Appeals in which the claim of the petitioner is about the consideration of his case by the Hon'ble High Court and after the order of learned Single Judge, the matter has been referred to be considered by this Bench and rest of the matters either in the writ petition or in the Special Appeals relating to the appointment/ selection and termination of the District Court staffs be formed a different class and they are to be listed before the appropriate Single Judge/ Division Bench hearing Special Appeal as the case may be, which will be in the fitness of things and will be proper also. Office is directed to complete the exercise of sorting out of the cases and to list all the matters as indicated above by us, before appropriate Courts/ Bench. Office is further directed to list / notify the Special Appeals which are to be listed before this Bench on 27.8.2010. " All the writ petitions have, therefore, been disconnected except the present special appeal. We have gone through the questions formulated by the Division Bench and are of the considered opinion that except question No. 4, which is reproduced below, the remaining question does not require our consideration in view of the order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the earlier Full Bench. "4. Where an ad hoc employee is appointed and is continued for a fixed period of three months, his services are extended from time to time and funds are sanctioned by the High Court for paying salary etc. to them, whether such appointment is treated to have obtained assent of the High Court and, therefore, continuance in service is legal and whether such employees who have put in about 8 years or more service, is entitled to be regularize ?"
(3.) THE present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2010 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners appellants, who are 7 in number seeking continuance in service as class IV employees (except appellant No. 6, who claims continuance as a driver) in the district Judgeship of Agra, has been dismissed. The learned single Judge, however, made it clear that in view of the recommendation made by Hon'ble the Administrative Judge, in the event any benefits are extended to such ad hoc employees on the administrative side, then the dismissal of the writ petition shall not be an impediment for the availability of such benefits, if any.;