R.A.Sharma - (1.) FOR appointment to class III posts in Meerut Judge ship, applications were invited and examination was held. After the result was declared, a list of selected candidates was drawn on 3-3-1987 and the appointments during the next one year were to be made in order of merit from that list Petitioners, who were some of the selected candidates and whose names were placed in the above list, were appointed on various dates from 4-4-1988 to 13-6-1988 to class III posts In Meerut Judgeship The petitioners claim to have been appointed on regular basis while the respondent has stated that their appointments were on ad hoc basis From the perusal of appointment letters, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 3 to 8 to writ petition, fit appears that they were appointed as officiating paid Aprentices on fixed salary of Rs 350/- per months. By order dated 5-8-1992 the learned District Judge, Meerut has directed for compliance of the order passed by this Court on 8-8-1991 in Writ Petition No. 10823 of 1989. wherein it was laid down that a select list, prepared under Rule 14 of the Sub-ordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, cannot last more than one year and no appointment can be made after the expiry of one year from the date the list was prepared. Petitioners have thereafter filed this writ petition for quashing the above order dated 5-8-1992. passed by the learned District Judge, Meerut.
(2.) RESPONDEAT has filed counter affidavit and the petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit in reply to. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions, namely, (i) petitioners, having been given appointment are entitled to continue and their appointment cannot be cancelled in view of the second proviso of Rule 15 (ii) the decision of this Court dated 8-8-1991 in Writ Petition No. J0823 of 1989 cannot be applied to the petitioners as they were not parties in that case and the learned District Judge ought not to have applied the said judgment against them, and (iii) as the names of two of the petitioners were entered in the select list for the first time on 30-9-1987, their appointments were made within one year from the date of their recruitment and they ate not hit by one year Rule as their appointment was made within a year from 30-9-1987.. It is admitted that selectman of petitioners and other candidates for appointment to class III posts in Meerut Judgeship was made under the Rules and the list of selected candidates was prepared on 3-3-1987 in accordance with Rule 14 of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, being relevant is reproduced below ; "(3) If any such candidate has not been given an appointment offered in strict order of seniority according to the list in the bound register prescribed under sub-rule (1) within one year from the date of his recruitment his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates and he must then take Ms chance with others for recruitment again in a subsequent year. According to the above provision if a candidate has not been given an appointment "within one year from the date of his recruitment, his name shall be automatically removed from the register of recruited candidates " It is thus obvious th it in the absence of any appointment within one year from the date of the recruitment, the life of the list in which names of the selected candidates are contained comes to an end and their right to seek an appointment on the basis of the selection also comes to an end automatically. It is admitted to the petitioners that except two of them, they were not given any appointment within one year from the date of their recruitment This is also clear from paragraph 3 of the writ petition in which it has been mentioned that they were appointed on various dates from 4-4-1988 to 13-6-1988. These dales were apparently after the expiry of one vear from 3-3-1987 on which date the list containing the names of the recruited candidates was prepared. The list having ceased to be effective after one year, petitioners were not entitled to be appointed to class III posts on the basis of their selection made in March, 1987. A Division Bench of this Court in Pawan Singh v. District Judge, 1987 AWC 604. the relevant extract from which is reproduced below has also laid down that the list containing the names of selected candidates lapses after one year and no appointment can be made from it thereafter ; "That the select list will stand cancelled after one year and during this one year a candidate from outside the list will not be appointed unless the list has exhausted "
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has however, relying on the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 15. argued that as the petitioners have been appointed, although after the expiry of one year from the date of list, the provision contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 cannot be applied. In support of this proposition learned counsel has relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Satendra Prasad Sharma v. District Judge, 1987 AWC 167. Rule 14 (1) which provides for registration of selected candidates, lays down that the names of the recruited candidates shall be entered in order of merit in a bound register in a prescribed form Sub-rule (3) thereof lays down that the name of such a candidate who has not been given an appointment within one year from the date of his recruitment, shall be automatically removed from the register of the recruited candidates and he must take his chance with others for recruitment again in subsequent year. The right of a candidate to get an appointment after one year from the date of his recruitment is lost if he has not been given as appointment within the said period of one year. His name having stood removed automatically from the register of recruited candidates, no advantage can be taken by such a candidate of the provision contained in second proviso to Rule 15. That apart, this Rule deals with a different situation. Second proviso to Rule 15, being relevant is reproduced below ; Second Proviso to Rule 15 ; "Provided also that nothing in these rules shall operate to the disadvantage of any person on the approved list of candidates who have already got an officiating chance and not otherwise disqualified at the time these rules come Into force, whether such person, has in fact been appointed or not." (Emphasis supplied). As is clear from the above proviso, it deals with a case where name of any person was on the approved list of candidates" at the time these rules come into force." It does not deal with a case when the list prepared after the enforcement of the rules. It was libs a saving clause, which is inserted in the Lgisiation to protect the Interest of those, who might be adversely affected after the new Legislation is enforced. Petitioner, therefore, cannot take any advantage of the aforesaid proviso, inasmuch as rules were enforced in 1947, whereas the list, In the instant case, containing the names of selected candidates was prepared in 1987.;