S. C. Mathur, A.C.J. - (1.) THESE three special Appeals are directed against a common judgment whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants. In the writ petitions, the appellants had sought a writ of mandamus to command the District Judge, Jaunpur to appoint them as Paid Apprentice in his Judgeship and to forbear from holding further examination for preparation of a select list.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petitions and the present Special Appeals may immediately be stated. In the year 1986, the District Judge, Jaunpur held examination for preparing a select list out of which appointments were to be made to the post of Paid Apprentice. After holding written examination and interview, a list of 61 candidates was published on 24th March 1986. la this list, the names of the appellants Sachida Nand Singh, Hitendra Kumar Chaturvedi and Sanjay Kumar Upadhya (petitioners in writ petition no. 9020 of 1989) appeared at Serial numbers 30, 31, and 37 respectively and Kailash Nath Maurya, Rais Ahmad, Om Prakash Srivastava and Mohammad Akhtar (petitioners in writ petition no. 7826 of 1989) at serial numbers 49, 51, 52 and 59 respectively. Dharmendra Kumar Tewari (petitioner no. 4 in writ petition no. 7826 of 1989) claims that his name appeared at serial No. 55. Similarly, the name of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the sole petitioner in writ petition no. 13220 of 1989, found place at serial no. 38. In 1986 itself, persons whose names figured at serial numbers 1 to 23 were given appointment. In April-May, 1986, the appellants were appointed for short duration and paid salary for the period they worked. In December 1987, three persons, in 1988 seven persons and on 1-1-1989 one person were appointed out of the same list. THE appellants did not get regular appointment and they represented their case to the District Judge. THE District Judge by his order dated 15th April, 1989 rejected the representations and cancelled the list prepared in the year 1986. THE appellants were aggrieved by the order of the District Judge and accordingly they tilled the writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeals. In the writ petitions, the case of the appellants was as follows : The select list had been prepared under the provisions of Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (for short 'the Rules'). Under Rule 14 of the Rules the name of a candidate who failed to get appointment within one year from the date of recruitment gets automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates. Natural corollary of this was that the name of a candidate who got appointment within the said period of one year could not be removed from the said register. Since the appellants got appointment within the said period of one year, their names could not be removed, Therefore, the order of the District Judge cancelling the list is illegal so far it concerns the appellants. In support of their case, the appellants cited the decision of a Division [Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Das and others v. District Judge Azamgarh, and others (writ petition no. 30407 of 1990 decided on 22nd March, 1992). The writ petitions were contested by the District Judge, Jaunpur. The case of the District Judge was that there was no regular vacancy against which the appellants could be appointed. They manipulated vacancies by persuading 46 employees to go on leave for 35 days. Against these leave vacancies, the appellant a were appointed for a period of 15 days only. The leave was subsequently cancelled and the employees were asked to join within 15 days. By obtaining appointment against the manipulated vacancies for a short period, the appellants cannot claim continuance of their names in the select list. The action of cancelling the 1986 list was in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, under which the select list remains valid for a period of one year only.
(3.) IN the rejoinder-affidavit, the appellants denied the allegation of manipulation of vacancies. The learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of manipulation of vacancies raised on behalf of the District Judge. He has held that by the short-term appointment against the said vacancies the appellants did not acquire any right to claim continuance of their names in the register of the recruited candidates. The learned Single Judge has further held that in view of Rule 9 of the Rules, recruitment is made to make appointment against vacancies likely to occur in the course of the year, and not to make appointment against vacancies occurring beyond the year. On this basis he had held that the appellants cannot claim appointment against the vacancies occurring after the expiry of the period of one year contemplated by the Rales. Cancellation of the list of 1986 has, therefore, been held to suffer from no infirmity. With these findings, the learned Single Judge dismissed the three petitions.;